OM PRAKASH, J. - (1.) By this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the Sales Tax Tribunal's order dated 17th November, 1987 (annexure 5 to the petition ). The brief facts are that 650 tins of desi ghee belonging to the petitioner were seized at the entry check-post by the sales tax authorities, when they were being brought to U. P. from Delhi on 21st July, 1985 along with form 31, but without bill, challan, etc. The petitioner explained that the said goods had been sent to Delhi from Hathras on 24th June, 1985, to its sister concern in Delhi, but the goods were returned by the sister concern, according to which the goods were not sealed or fresh. The sales tax authorities also examined Sri Kishan Lal, son of Sri Sewa Ram, proprietor of Malik Transport Company, Hathras, through whom the goods were purportedly sent from Hathras to Delhi on 24th June, 1985, but he denied having transported the petitioner's goods in question to Delhi on 24th June, 1985. Also the transporter stated that there was no question of having transported the petitioner's goods under bilty No. 589 on 24th June, 1985, as during the period 1st May, 1985 to 26th June, 1985, bilty book of serial Nos. 401 to 500 was used. The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), therefore, did not accept the case of the petitioner that the goods seized were earlier sent from Hathras to Delhi on 24th June, 1985 and the same were returned by the sister concern at Delhi on 21st July, 1985. The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) also held that the goods allegedly sent to Delhi on 24th June, 1985, were in fact, sold within U. P. outside the books. This is how the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) took the view that the sales and purchases had been suppressed by the petitioner. He therefore, imposed a penalty under section 13-A (4) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 of Rs. 67,000. The petitioner then appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, who dismissed the same. Then the petitioner approached the Sales Tax Tribunal in second appeal. The Tribunal also affirmed the order of the authorities below imposing penalty under section 13-A (4), but reduced the quantum of penalty by Rs. 37,000. Against the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed a revision in this Court, which was dismissed by the order dated 5th August, 1988, by this Court on the ground that in view of section 13-A (9) the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the penalty under section 13-A (4) had become final and, therefore, no revision lay against that order. This is how the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for quashing the Tribunal's order. The question for consideration is whether the authorities below are justified in having affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) imposing the penalty under section 13-A (4 ). Section 13-A, sub-section (1), so far as material and sub-section (4) are as given below : " 13-A (1 ). An officer authorised under sub-section (2) of section 13 shall have the powers to seize any goods - (i) which are found in the dealer's place of business or vehicle or any other building or place; or (ii) which such officer has reason to believe to belong to the dealer and which are found in any place of business or vehicle or building or place, but are not accounted for by the dealer in his accounts or registers or other documents maintained in the course of his business : . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) If such authority, after taking into consideration the explanation, if any, of the dealer or, as the case may be, the person in-charge and giving to him an opportunity of being heard, is satisfied that the said goods were wilfully omitted from being shown in the accounts, registers and other documents referred to in sub-section (1), it shall pass an order imposing such penalty, not exceeding the sum specified in the notice, as it may deem fit. " Under sub-section (1) goods can be seized, if the authorised officer has reason to believe that the goods belonging to the dealer found in vehicle, inter alia, were not accounted for in his accounts or registers or other documents maintained in the course of his business. Sub-section (4) states that if such authority after considering the explanation of the dealer is satisfied that there was wilful omission on the part of the dealer in showing the goods in the accounts, registers and other documents referred to in sub-section (1), then it shall pass an order imposing penalty. The accounts, registers and documents referred to in sub-section (1) are those which are required to be maintained in the course of the business. The question is whether the instant assessee committed an offence, envisaged by sub-section (4 ). It is obvious that the goods were seized at the check-post. The occasion of showing them in the account books did not arise. The seized goods would have been shown in the account books only when they reached the destination. The books are written at the place of business and the goods having been seized at check-post, the assessee could not get opportunity to post them in the books. Then the learned Standing Counsel argued that sub-section (4) does not refer to account books only but to registers and documents as well. While elaborating his argument, he urges that bill and challan are also documents and the goods must have been shown in them by the assessee. This argument is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as bill and challan are issued by the selling dealer and not by the purchasing dealer. The assessee being a purchaser of the seized goods, according to the Revenue, there was no occasion for it to show the seized goods in bill and challan. If that was the omission, that could be attributed to the selling dealer and not to the assessee. Then it was argued for the Revenue that the goods were imported without bill and challan, and, therefore, penalty was leviable. For the absence of bill and challan no penalty can be levied under sub-section (4) of section 13-A, because under this provision penalty is leviable only when the authority is satisfied that the seized goods were wilfully omitted from being shown in the accounts, registers and other documents required to be maintained in the course of business. For importing the goods without bill and challan, penalty can be levied under section 15-A (1) (o), which states that if the assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer or other person imports or transports any goods in contravention of the provisions of section 28-A, it may direct that such dealer or person shall pay penalty, in addition to the tax. Section 28-A (2) (a) states that if goods referred to in sub-section (1) are consigned by road, then the importer shall furnish to the consignor the declaration in the prescribed form in duplicate together with such other documents as may be prescribed. Rule 83 (4) of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948, enjoins upon the owner or the driver to carry the declaration (form 31 being relevant in this case), cash memo, bill of sale or challan and a trip sheet in triplicate. In case of import of goods contemplated by sub-section (1) of section 28-A the owner or the driver is required to carry the aforesaid documents and, if they are not there, then penalty can be levied only under section 15-A (1) (o) and not under section 13-A (4 ). None of the authorities below has given any good reason to bring this case within the ambit of section 13-A (4 ). The only finding of the Tribunal given in paragraph 11 of the impugned order is that the intention of the dealer was not to make entries in the account books. It is difficult to conclude on the facts of the case that the intention of the dealer was not to make the entries in the books. Moreover, the penalty under section 13-A (4) cannot be levied merely on account of the intention of the dealer not to show the goods in the account books, but penalty could be levied only when the goods were wilfully omitted from being shown in the accounts and this conclusion can be reached only after the goods having been received at the destination and they having not been entered in the account books and other documents maintained in the course of business. Therefore, the orders of the authorities below are not sustainable. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and orders of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), annexures 5, 4 and 2 to the writ petition respectively, are quashed and the Sales Tax Officer, respondent No. 5, is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 30,000 if deposited by the petitioner, forthwith to the petitioner. Writ petition allowed. .;