M. C. AGARWAL, J. - (1.) These two revisions are directed against a common order dated May 11, 1993, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's Appeal No. 61 of 1988 that was directed against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), whereby the latter had set aside the revisionist's assessment for the assessment year 1985-86 and allowed the assessee's other Appeal No. 586 of 1986 directed against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) whereby the latter had confirmed the levy of penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and setting aside the said order, remanded the matter to the assessing officer fore fresh disposal. The contention raised by the revisionist in both these revisions is that there was no material whatsoever to justify the proceedings against the present revisionist and the order of remand that has been passed to enable the assessing officer to collect evidence was unjustified. The facts are that the revisionist deals in machinery and machinery parts. On July 11, 1985, there was a raid by Excise Department on house No. 83/17a Parmpurwa, Kanpur, from where some quantity of foreign liquor was recovered. The Excise Department informed the sales tax authorities that the present revisionist had a connection with the said liquor. On the basis of that information, the assessing authority first made an ex parte assessment vide order dated October 16, 1986. That was set aside under section 30 and again an assessment was made vide order sated August 10, 1987, assessing the turnover of dealer at Rs. 4 lacs and levying the tax at Rs. 1. 4 lacs. The dealer appealed to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who set aside the assessment. The revisionist preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. It has recorded a finding that there was no evidence on the record to show that On July 11, 1985, when the raid was conducted, the revisionist was in possession of the house from which the recovery was made. Revisionist's contention was that the said house had been let out to one Rajvir Singh and he relied upon a rent receipt. The Tribunal also observed that it was not the case of the Revenue that the said receipt was fictitious. The Tribunal observed that complete enquiry has not been made in this case and it has not been brought on record as to what investigation was made by the excise authorities, who were the persons whose statements were recorded by the excise authorities, and what facts and material were discovered by them. The Tribunal therefore, thought that evidence in this case was necessary and it, therefore, confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) remanding the matter to the assessing officer. Penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) was also levied by the Sales Tax Officer vide order dated October 9, 1985. The assessee preferred appeal to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who confirmed the levy of penalty. The Tribunal for the reasons stated above has set aside the penalty order also and remanded the matter back to the assessing officer. As is evident from the orders of the authority below apart from the information that the revisionist had some connection with the aforesaid liquor in other material had been brought on record by the assessing officer either to support the levy of penalty or the assumption that the revisionist was dealing in liquor. There is nothing to show even what type of connection the revisionist had with the liquor. It is clear from the order passed by the learned Tribunal that there was not even an iota of evidence to show that the revisionist was in possession of the liquor that was recovered by the Excise Department and which because of the seizure by the Excise Department could not have been sold by the revisionist even if he actually had some connection therewith. There was utter inaction on the part of the assessing officer who made no effort whatsoever to collect the relevant evidence before proceeding to make an ex parte assessment. When the proceedings were reopened under section 30 the revisionist filed affidavits to deny his connection with the liquor in question and in support of his assertion that the premises in question were in occupation of Rajvir Singh, a tenant. At that time at the instance of the revisionist, the assessing officer made some effort to summon the excise authorities but no one appeared. The learned Standing Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Jain Industries and Trading Corporation v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1990] 76 STC 44, wherein remand of proceedings was held to be justified where the assessing authorities failed to make proper investigation and material seized during the surveys was neither scrutinised nor processed. That was thus a case on different facts. The present case is one where except one opinion of the excise officer the basis of which is not known as yet and in spite of the fact that the information was passed on to the department quickly no action was taken to investigate and find out if there was any basis to make an assessment on the assessee or levy penalty. The officer patently proceeded mechanically and in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and the circumstances of the case remand of the proceedings to the assessing officer is unjustified and is not legally tenable. Section 15-A (1) (o) deals with a person who imports or transports, or attempts to import or transport or abets the import or transport of any goods in contravention of the provisions of section 28-A. It does not deal with possession of any goods and mere possession cannot amount to import or transport. Thus patently section 15-A (1) (o) could not be invoked on mere information that revisionist was somehow connected with some quantity of liquor as stated above. For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the orders passed by the Tribunal are not legal sustained. The revisions are, therefore, allowed and the setting aside the orders of authorities below the order of penalty as well as the order of assessment are hereby quashed. Petitions allowed. .;