PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - (1.) HEARD the counsel for the parties.
(2.) SHRI B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, agreed that instead of hearing the revision for admission, the revision may be heard and decided finally. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the revision is being decided finally. The applicant, a private limited company registered under the Companies Act established a unit at D -9, Panki, Site -1, Kanpur for the purposes of manufacture and sale of auto parts. For some reason, the applicant decided to close down the said unit with effect from March 31, 2007. The information of the closure of the unit was given to the Trade Tax Department. Due to the closure of the unit, the applicant decided to shift the office goods from the State of U. P. to State of Uttaranchal, to its sister concern. For this purpose, the office equipment such as chairs, tables, almirahas, gas cylinder, electric fittings, etc., were being transported from State of U. P. to the sister concern known as Unimotive Auto Parts situate at Plot Nos. 20, 21 and 22, Siduel Site, Sitarganj (State of Uttaranchal). The goods were accompanied with challan No. 137, dated October 17, 2007 where it was mentioned that the goods are 'not for sale' specifically.
(3.) THE Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, Trade Tax, Kanpur, intercepted the consignment on October 18, 2007 on the ground that in the challan the registration number was not mentioned. A show -cause notice was issued to the applicant to which a detailed reply was furnished stating that the goods are not meant for sale, old unusable office equipment goods were being transported to its sister concern at Uttaranchal. The said reply was not found satisfactory by the officer concerned and thereafter an order demanding security to the extent of Rs. 92,800 being 40 per cent of the estimated value of the goods was demanded by the order dated October 19, 2007. Being aggrieved by the said order, an application, as provided for under Section 13A(6) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, was filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement). The said application was dismissed by the authority concerned by the order dated November 23, 2007, which was challenged before the Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 109 of 2008 unsuccessfully. The Tribunal by the order under revision has dismissed the appeal.;