Honble Rajes Kumar, J.—The present revision under Section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act (called the Act for brevity) read with Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (called the Trade Tax Act for short) is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 30.4.2009 in Second Appeal No. 42 of 2009.

2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present revision are that the applicant is a Public Limited Company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Dharamshala Road, village Chohal, district Hoshiyarpur (Punjab) and branch office in U.P. at Maunath Bhanjan, Mau. The applicant is manufacturer of ‘Nylon Filament Yarn’, which is being manufactured at its plant at Hoshiyarpur (Punjab). It is claimed that the Nylon Filament Yarn, after manufacturing, is rolled on the plastic coated iron cops. The goods are being sent to Maunath Bhanjan by way of stock transfer from the factory. At Maunath Bhanjan the sales are made to various dealers with the condition to return the cops for which the dealer furnishes bank guarantee. The dealer maintains stock register in respect of such iron cops and time to time used to sent such cops to the Head Office. In the course of business the Maunath Bhanjan Branch Office despatched 20,000 iron cops against delivery challan No. 59, dated 7.3.2009, through a transporter, viz. M/s. Sudhir Road Carrier in truck No. PB-10-AA/9767 in respect of which Bilty No. 73216, dated 7.3.2009. was prepared. When the vehicle reached at Bijnor, the Commercial Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Bijnor, intercepted the truck and issued a show-cause notice requiring the applicant to explain as to why on the delivery challan serial number and TIN number have been stamped and the delivery challan has not been pre-authenticated by the applicant. The applicant filed reply to the show-cause notice and submitted therein that it is a bona fide dealer registered under the Trade Tax Act and, due to non-printing of TIN number and Serial Number on delivery challan, the employee of the applicant has stamped serial number and TIN number on the delivery challan and also put signature and stamp. The goods was not meant for sale and there was no intention to evade the payment of tax.

3. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Bijnor, vide order dated 14.3.2009, rejected the reply, seized the goods and demanded the security to the extent of Rs. 2,25,000/- in cash, being three times of the tax. The seizure order was passed under Section 48(2) of the Act.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant filed an application under Section 48(7) of the Act before the Joint Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Bijnor. The Joint Commissioner (SIB), vide order dated 18.3.2009, rejected the application and confirmed the seizure and the demand of security.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, rejected the appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that under Section 48(2) the goods can only be seized if it was not traceable to the bona fide dealer and was not recorded in the books of account, documents and register. In the present case there is no dispute that the applicant is a bona fide dealer. So far as the entry in the books of account is concerned, the goods was accompanied by challan in which the serial number and TIN number and the complete details of the goods were mentioned. It was also mentioned that the goods was not for sale. None of the authorities has recorded any finding that the goods were not found entered in the books of account and, therefore, the condition of Rule 48(2) are not fulfilled and the seizure of the goods was patently illegal. He further submitted that mentioning of serial number and TIN number by stamping is one of the form of printing and, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn.

8. Le