The provision of section 29A, aimed at preventing tax evasion, was found to be within the incidental or ancillary powers of taxation, and the restrictions imposed were deemed reasonable in the public interest.

VISWANATHA IYER, J.

The constitutional validity of section 29A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is challenged in all these writ petitions and, to appreciate the point raised, the facts in O.P. No. 999 of 1973 alone are stated in brief hereunder :

2. The petitioner is doing business in hill produce such as pepper, ginger, etc., in Tellicherry Town. He purchases the goods locally and sells those goods to registered dealers outside the state in the course of inter-State trade. The petitioner has been registered as a dealer both under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and the General Sales Tax Act on the file of the Sales tax Officer, Special Circle, Tellicherry. On 9th March, 1973, he despatched 84 bags of pepper and 8 bags of dry ginger to M/s. Chakrapani and Co., who is acting as the agent of the petitioner in Bangalore. According to the petitioner, the goods were despatched on consignment basis by a lorry. One Ahammed was its driver and he took with him the invoice and the way-bill relating to the consignment. The lorry left Tellicherry at 22.00 hours and was to reach Bangalore on the 10th morning as there was an urgent demand for the supply of pepper and ginger. But the Sales Tax Inspector, Chavasseri, intercepted the goods vehicle at Chavasseri in Tellicherry-Kuthupuzha road at about 23.30 hours on 9th March, 1973. The driver produced the invoice and the way-bill to the officer concerned. But the Sales Tax Inspector - the second respondent herein - directed the lorry driver to unload the goods at Kuthupuzha check post and issued a notice to the driver pointing out certain defects in the documents produced by him and also proposing to take action in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 29A of the Act. The notice issued by the second respondent further contained a statement that an opportunity is given to the driver to prove that the documents produced by him are ginger. But before the driver could produce the necessary documents for that purpose, the Sales Tax Inspector changed his camp from Chavasseri to Tellicherry and at about 11.15 A.M. on 10th March, 1973, inspected the petitioner's place of business and demanded for the account books. At that time, the petitioner was not present in the shop. His employee could not give any details of the accounts to the officer concerned. Following this, the Inspector issued exhibit P-6 notice calling upon the petitioner to produce certain records within 3 hours. On coming to know of exhibit P-6 notice, the petitioner produced the ledger for the year 1972-73, the way-bills, and the sales and purchase bill be before the second respondent at his came office at Tellicherry at 1.30 P.M. These records were received by the officer, but were not returned after perusal. After these, the officer issued another notice on 10th March, 1973, granting an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish security for an amount equal to double the tax in respect of the goods detained within 14 days from the date of stopping the vehicle. The notice, inter alia, stated that, as the driver of the vehicle failed to adduce any evidence, the goods have been detained and the petitioner is called upon to furnish security for an amount of Rs. 2,818, which, according to the officer, represented double the tax due on the value of the goods. The petitioner furnished the security under protest and transported the goods to Bangalore as originally arranged. Thereafter, this petition is filed challenging the action of the Sales Tax Officer. The Sales Tax Inspector - the second respondent - has apparently acted in exercise of the powers conferred under section 29A of the Act. Under this section, the officer is given power to stop the vehicle, to detain the goods, to demand security in any form for double the amount of tax likely to be evaded as may be estimated by the officer, to seize the goods if security is not furnished, and a power to impose penalty equal to