A. P. SINGH, J. - (1.) This revision has been filed against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal dated December 6, 1993 in Second Appeal No. 582 of 1993 relating to assessment year in the proceedings arising out of assessment of tax. In brief, the facts of the case are that on November 4, 1993, the Sales Tax Officer (Check Post), Saiyan, detained the goods of the applicant which were being taken by him in vehicle No. MP-07/7060. The applicant deposited form No. 34 and made declaration in respect of 425 pieces of paper-based laminates worth Rs. 28,560. On physical verification conducted by the Sales Tax Officer, he found the goods numbering 4,250 pieces of laminated sheets worth Rs. 2,93,000. He, accordingly, issued a show cause notice calling upon the applicant to submit his explanation regarding the discrepancy found in the declaration which did not tally with the physical verification of goods. The dealer's explanation was that the declaration was based on the entries made in the invoice accompanying the goods and since in the invoice the description of goods was wrongly made due to typographical error and instead of 4,250 sheets only 425 sheets were mentioned as such the wrong declaration was not intentional as also there was no intention to evade payment of tax. The explanation of the applicant was not found satisfactory and the Sales Tax Officer formed the view that the description made by the applicant was with the intention to evade payment of tax, he therefore passed an order for seizure of the goods and for the purpose of release of the goods assessed the value of the goods at Rs. 3,92,500 and directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 1,57,000 in cash so as to enable the applicant to take away the goods for its further transmission to Delhi. The applicant also made an application that the goods which are found in excess of the declaration made in form No. 34 may be sealed and he may be allowed without making any deposit to cross the check post and after physical verification at the exit check post if the goods are found in order he may be allowed to proceed to Delhi, if however goods are not found in order the same then may be seized. This prayer of the applicant too was not accepted. The applicant, thereafter, made an application under proviso to section 13-A (6) before the Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement) with the same explanation and prayer. The Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement) too rejected the explanation and the prayer of the applicant. He however reduced the value of the goods to Rs. 2,60,320 instead of Rs. 3,92,500 and accordingly reduced the amount required to be deposited by the applicant to Rs. 1,04,128. He was also directed to deposit security. The applicant filed second appeal under section 10 (2) of the Act before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal also did not find any force in the contentions and the prayer of the applicant. Before the Tribunal too the applicant reiterated his explanation and the prayer as earlier asserted by him before the Sales Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal, accordingly, rejected the appeal. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri Bharatji Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri C. P. Gupta, Standing Counsel, for the respondent. The contention of the applicant's counsel is that the Tribunal as well as the Assistant Commissioner failed to consider the explanation in the proper perspective. It was argued that the challan, the excise gate pass and the form No. 25a of the State of M. P. Sales Tax Department did conform to the description of the goods in the consignment from which it was clear that the goods were being exported from M. P. to Delhi and were not for sale or use in U. P. as such there was no intention whatsoever for evading payment of tax which was a pre-requisite for detaining the goods. On the same basis it was argued that the theory of wrong entry in the invoice due to writing error as well as the resultant error in the declaration in form No. 34 at the entry check-post is fully made out. This contention of the learned counsel has been repelled by all the authorities on cogent grounds. In revisional jurisdiction this Court would not assess the plausibility of the explanation given by the applicant. The Tribunal's order therefore cannot be said to be illegal. The above circumstance however in my opinion do make out a case for taking a lenient view in the matter as mistake theory of the applicant cannot entirely be ruled out. The fact that the applicant had produced challan No. 75 dated November 2, 1993 and also the gate pass No. GP 1 dated November 2, 1993 and form 25a issued by the M. P. Sales Tax Department all of which certainly demonstrate that the applicant had been transporting only those goods which are covered by the challan, the excise gate pass and form 25a which may make out his stand of clerical mistake committed in the preparation of the invoice which caused consequential mistake in form 34. However, without making any comment on the merits of the explanation given by the applicant which will be decided in the penalty proceedings under section 15-A (i) it appears necessary in the interest of justice that the goods of the applicant may be released by the Sales Tax Officer (Check Post) on his depositing a sum of Rs. 34,000 which may represent the tax liability of the applicant and for the remaining amount of Rs. 70,000 he may furnish security other than cash and bank guarantee in favour of the Sales Tax Officer (Check Post ). As soon as these formalities are completed by the applicant, the Sales Tax Officer (Check Post) shall issue form No. 34 to him and shall permit the applicant to cross the entry check-post on his giving a declaration as per law. The orders of the Sales Tax Officer and the Sales Tax Tribunal are, accordingly, modified to that extent. There shall be no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order may be made available to the counsel for the applicant on payment of usual charges within three days. Ordered accordingly. .;