R. M. SAHAI, J. - (1.) The petitioner owner of vehicle No. MKW 7542 seeks quashing of orders dated 4th and 9th February, 1989, passed by Sales Tax Officer and Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) seizing the vehicle of the petitioner under section 13-A of U. P. Sales Tax Act and directing him to pay security assessed by them for its release. What has been found by the Assistant Commissioner is that the petitioner purchased the vehicle in Gwalior on 5th January, 1989, got it registered and then brought it inside the State and is plying it for business purposes. And since the petitioner is resident of U. P. State it was necessary for him to import the vehicle after obtaining form XXXII. Therefore, the order of the Sales Tax Officer seizing the vehicle under section 13-A and directing it to be released on furnishing of security was found to be correct. Since on facts found the orders appear to be unsustainable, it was not considered necessary to call for any counter-affidavit and the petition is being decided after hearing the learned Standing Counsel. The security demanded is for sales tax payable. If this be correct that the petitioner by any stretch can be considered to be a dealer liable to pay tax then the orders are unexceptionable. But every person who brings or even imports goods inside the State is not a dealer. Section 28-A no doubt requires any person to import goods against declaration if it was in excess of specified quantity. But the goods should be liable to tax. A vehicle registered in another State brought by a person for his own use or used for commercial purposes is not liable to tax as under notification issued under the Act tax is at point of sale by dealer to consumer. Plying of vehicle for business purposes as has been found by Assistant Commissioner does not attract tax. Therefore, the opposite parties could not have invoked power either under section 13-A or take action for contravention of section 28-A. Decision in Vinod Kumar v. Sales Tax Officer 1989 UPTC page 226 is distinguishable. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 4th and 9th February, 1989, passed by the opposite parties are quashed. The opposite parties are directed to release the vehicle forthwith. Writ petition allowed. .;