Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.)Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the revisionist is a farmer, and was carrying 40 bags of wheat for being sold at Gorakhpur Mandi, and the apprehension of the authorities that it was proposed to be sold contrary to law with an intent to evade tax, was misconceived. It is also stated that mere fact that Kisan Bahi was in the name of father, would not lead to an inference that requisite materials supporting the transfer of goods were found lacking. It is also stated that being agricultural produce, the goods were otherwise exempted under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act. It is also contended that revisionist is not a dealer, but is merely a farmer.
(2.)Learned Standing Counsel submits that the interest of revenue be protected in the event that the revisionist is held liable to payment of any tax/penalty.
(3.)Considering the facts and circumstances, as have been brought on record, it would be appropriate to dispose of the matter, directing the authorities to release the goods, which are agricultural produce, upon furnishing of an indemnity bond. The revenue may proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law.