The Court held that the ground on which the authority proposes to confiscate the goods and the vehicle is not tenable in law. The show cause notice appears to have been issued on an assumption that the driver of the vehicle might have indulged in the past in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It appears the entire basis for the issue of the show cause notice is conjectures and surmises.

The goods and the vehicle can be detained under Section 129 of the Act only if such goods are transported in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. We specifically inquired with Mr. Dave, the learned Assistant Government Pleader as to whether any provision of the Act or the Rules could be said to have been contravened with regard to the transaction in question. Mr. Dave, with his usual fairness pointed out that when the goods were in transit and detained, it cannot be said that there was any contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. However, according to Mr. Dave, the authorities have grave suspicion that the driver of the vehicle might have entered Ahmedabad on the same E-way bill and might have succeeded in getting out thereafter without payment of any tax. Thus, the case of Mr. Dave, the learned Assistant Government Pleader is one of evasion of tax for some transaction which is unknown.

The show cause notice under Section 130 of the Act cannot be issued on a mere suspicion. There has to be some prima facie material on the basis of which the authority may arrive at the satisfaction that the goods are liable to be confiscated under Section 130 of the Act. In such circumstances referred to above, we are left with no other option but to quash and set aside the notice date. It is hereby ordered to be quashed. We clarify that if there is any other inquiry to be made as regards any other transaction, it is open for the authority to initiate and carry out such inquiry. With the above, this writ application stands allowed.