B. M. LAL, J. The main grievance which the petitioner has brought before this Court for redress by means of this petition under article 226 of the Constitution is, that the impugned order dated October 4, 1994 (annexure 7 to the writ petition) passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) I, Trade Tax, Varanasi, whereby the assessee is directed not to use the coal imported on form 31 on job work; and that the impugned condition imposed vide order dated October 6, 1994 (annexure 9) to the effect that the assessee shall not use the coal imported on form 31 on job work, may be quashed. 2. In short the case of petitioner is that M/s. Jhunjhunwala a partnership-firm is registered dealer under the provisions of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (now U. P. Trade Tax Act) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and carries on the business of manufacture and sale of refined oil, etc. It refines oil both in its own account as also on job work basis. It requires steam coal in huge quantity to be used as fuel for manufacturing the refined oil. In order to bring coal by road from Central Coal Field, Ranchi to Varanasi (where petitioners factory is situated) within the State of Uttar Pradesh, petitioner requires form 31 as prescribed under the Act and the U. P. Trade Tax Rules (for short, "the Rules" ). The petitioner vide application dated September 17, 1994 (annexure 4) requested the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) I, Trade Tax, Varanasi, to issue 1,500 forms 31 who instead of issuing form 31 issued a notice dated September 23, 1994 under section 15-A (1) (r) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty be not imposed as coal which is being imported by the petitioner on form 31 is being used on job work. The petitioner replied aforesaid show cause notice and ultimately impugned orders referred to above have been passed. Hence this writ petition. 3. The petitioner replied aforesaid show cause notice and ultimately impugned orders referred to above have been passed. Hence this writ petition. 3. While filing counter-affidavit the respondents have emerged with the plea that the writ petition is barred by alternative remedy of appeal provided under section 9 of the Act and that form 31 which is a declaration of import can be issued only to the persons engaged in the activities of buying, selling, supplying or distributing the goods and since the petitioner is utilising 95 per cent of imported coal for job work which is not covered under the business activities hence he is not entitled to the form 31 for job work. Indeed the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Act and Rules but the said registration is not for the job work and the Coal India Ltd. , has also not authorised the petitioner to use the coal for job work. Under the provisions of the Act and Rules the petitioner cannot import coal for job work on form 31 and the impugned orders passed by the respondents are perfectly correct and legal and the impugned orders call for no interference by this Court on any ground whatsoever, consequently the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Sri S. P. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly contended with all clarity at his command that the job work being an activity in the nature of processing, the petitioner is entitled to import coal for job work on form 31, therefore, the impugned orders are illegal and without jurisdiction. Sri Gupta further contended that the petitioner being a registered dealer can bring coal from Ranchi to Varanasi against form 31 irrespective of its user and thereby even for the activities other than the business activities, as provided under section 28-A of the Act. 5. Sri Gupta further contended that the petitioner being a registered dealer can bring coal from Ranchi to Varanasi against form 31 irrespective of its user and thereby even for the activities other than the business activities, as provided under section 28-A of the Act. 5. Supporting the impugned orders, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that under the scheme of Act and Rules the goods intended to be brought or imported into the State in connection with business can be brought or imported only against form 31 and the goods intended to be brought or imported into State otherwise than in connection with business can be brought or imported against form 32 only and since the petitioner intends admittedly to bring or import the coal for job work which is not in connection with business rather is otherwise than in connection with business hence he is not entitled to be issued the form 31 for job work. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties the short question that arises for determination by this Court is whether under the provisions of the Act and Rules, can form 31 be issued to an importer who intends to import or bring the coal into the State of U. P. for job work, i. e. , otherwise than in connection with business ? A germane question also emerges as to whether while issuing form 31 to a registered dealer who intends to import or bring coal in connection with business and also otherwise than in connection with business, i. e. , job work, can a condition be imposed that the coal imported against form 31 shall not be utilised for the job work which is otherwise than in connection with business ? 7. 7. While dealing with these question it is necessary to look into the relevant provisions of sub-section (1) of section 28-A of the Act which reads as under : " 28-A. Import of goods into the State against declaration.- (1) Any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the importer) who intends to bring, import or otherwise receive, into the State from any place without the State, any goods liable to tax under this Act in such quantity or measure or of such value, as exceeds, - (a) (i) twenty kilograms in the case of foodgrains, cereals, pulses, soyabean, and all products thereof, and all raw materials including resin, rosin and oil-seeds used for extracting oils of any kind; and (ii) rupees fifty, in the case of other goods; or (b) the quantity, measure or value notified by the State Government in that behalf, in connection with business, shall obtain the prescribed form of declaration on payment of the prescribed fee from the assessing authority having jurisdiction over the area where his principal place of business is situated or, in case there is no such place, where he ordinarily resides : Provided that where the importer intends to bring, import or otherwise receive such goods otherwise than in connection with business, he may, at this option, in the like manner obtain the prescribed form of certificate. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, it shall be presumed that the goods were intended to be brought, imported or otherwise received into the State in connection with the business unless the contrary is proved. " 8. A combined reading of abovementioned provision of sub-section (1) of section 28-A of the Act makes it crystal clear that an importer who intends to bring, import or otherwise receive into the State from any place outside the State any goods liable to tax under the Act in such quantity or measure or of such value as provided under this sub-section (1) in connection with business he shall obtain the prescribed form of declaration, i. e. , form 31 and if he intends to bring import or otherwise receive such goods otherwise than in connection with business, he may obtain the prescribed form of certificate, i. e. , form 32. In the instant case it is not disputed that the goods intended to be brought or imported is coal which is liable to tax under the Act. It is also not disputed that the quantity of the coal intended to be brought or imported exceeds the limit as provided under this sub-section (1) of section 28-A. Therefore, if the petitioner intends to bring or import the coal in connection with business he shall obtain the form 31 and if he intends to bring or import the coal otherwise than in connection with business he may obtain the form 32. 9. In the instant case the question before this Court pertains to the coal imported for the job work. There is no dispute for the coal imported in connection with business. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the job work is covered under the term "business" used in the Act. For this purpose we would like to look into the definition of "business" provided under section 2 (aa) of the Act which reads as under : " business, in relation to business of buying or selling goods, includes : (i) any trade, commerce or manufacture, or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture whether or not such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern is carried on with a motive to make profit and whether or not any profit accrues from such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern; and (ii) any transaction of buying, selling or supplying plant, machinery, raw materials, processing materials, packing materials, empties, consumable stores, waste or by-products, or any other goods of a similar nature or any unserviceable or obsolete or discarded machinery, or any parts or accessories thereof or any waste or scrap or any of them or any other transaction whatsoever which is ancillary to or is connected with or is incidental to, or results from, such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern; but does not include any activity in the nature of mere service or profession which does not involve the purchase or sale of goods;" 10. Thus, a bare perusal of abovementioned definition makes it crystal clear that any activity in the nature of mere service or profession which does not involve the purchase or sale of goods is not included in the term "business" as defined under section 2 (aa) of the Act. Thus, a bare perusal of abovementioned definition makes it crystal clear that any activity in the nature of mere service or profession which does not involve the purchase or sale of goods is not included in the term "business" as defined under section 2 (aa) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the firm is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of refined oil, etc. In addition to that the firm also refines the oil on job work basis. Therefore, there is no difficulty to the extent the petitioner utilises the coal on manufacture and sale of the refined oil. The difficulty arises when the petitioner utilises the coal on job work which is an activity in the nature of mere service. The petitioner refines oil for two purposes. One for sale and the other for mere service, i. e. , admittedly not for sale. Thus, in the instant case the job work of petitioner is an activity in the nature of mere service which does not involve the purchase or sale. Therefore, in our opinion in the circumstances of present case, the term "business" does not include the job work, i. e. , an activity in the nature of mere service which does not involve the purchase or sale, consequently the coal intended to be brought or imported for being used on job work is not in connection with business and hence form 31 cannot be issued for the same. 11. Sri Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also contended that under sub-rule (1) of rule 85 of the Rules, the petitioner being a registered dealer is required to send to the selling dealer or consignor of the other State two copies of the declaration in form 31 obtained by him under sub-rule (4), and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be issued the requisite number of form 31 and the authorities are bound to issue the same. 12. Now it becomes necessary to look into the provisions of sub-rules (1) and (4) of rule 85 which is reproduced below : " 85 (1 ). 12. Now it becomes necessary to look into the provisions of sub-rules (1) and (4) of rule 85 which is reproduced below : " 85 (1 ). A registered dealer desirous of importing or receiving into the State from any place outside the State goods notified under or referred to in sub-section (1) of section 28-A in excess of the quantity, measure or value specified thereunder shall send to the selling dealer or consignor of the other State two copies of the declaration in form XXXI obtained by him under sub-rule (4 ). " " 85 (4 ). If the Sales Tax Officer is satisfied that the demand of the dealer for blank declaration forms is genuine and reasonable, he may issue such number of forms as he deems fit. No declaration form shall be issued unless the dealer has rendered an account of all such forms obtained earlier. " 13. A perusal of above quoted rules indicates that sub-rule (1) of rule 85 provides for the manner or method regarding submission of declaration forms by a registered dealer to the selling dealer or consignor of the other State. It nowhere provides that the registered dealer shall be issued form 31 for the purposes otherwise than in connection with business. We have already observed above that there cannot be any difficulty in issuing form 31 for importing goods in connection with business. In the instant case it is not the point in dispute as to whether form 31 can be issued to a registered dealer or not. The point in dispute is as to whether form 31 can be issued for the coal to be used in job work or not. We have already arrived at the conclusion that form 31 cannot be issued for importing coal to be used in job work which is not included in business. As stated above the true import of sub-section (1) of section 28-A of the Act is that form 31 is meant for importing goods in connection with business and not for importing the goods otherwise than in connection with business. For importing goods otherwise than in connection with business form 32 is meant. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the provisions of rule 85 provide something contrary to the provisions of section 28-A of the Act. For importing goods otherwise than in connection with business form 32 is meant. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the provisions of rule 85 provide something contrary to the provisions of section 28-A of the Act. Needless to say that it is well-settled that the Rules framed under the Act cannot have overriding effect on the provisions of the Act itself under which the Rules are framed. 14. Further, sub-rule (4) of rule 85 speaks about the Sales Tax Officers satisfaction regarding genuineness and reasonableness of the demand of form 31 made by the dealer. Thus, before issuing form 31 an obligation cast on the Sales Tax Officer is to satisfy himself about the genuineness and reasonableness of the demand of form 31 meaning thereby the Sales Tax Officer has to satisfy himself as to whether the form 31 is demanded for importing goods in connection with business, proper account of the same is maintained and the same is not being misused, etc. , and thereafter he may issue such number of forms as he deems fit. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 85 of the Rules, form 31 can be issued to the petitioner even for importing coal for job work also, is not acceptable. 15. In view of the discussions made above our precise reply to the first question is that under the provisions of the Act and Rules, an importer who intends to import or bring the coal into the State of U. P. , for the purpose otherwise than in connection with business, i. e. , job work in the instant case, cannot be issued form 31 for that purpose by virtue of the statutory provisions of sub-section (1) of section 28-A of the Act. 16. 16. Now coming to the next question in respect of imposition of condition, it may be stated that the conclusion arrived at by this Court is, that form 31 cannot be issued for importing the coal to be used on job work and the finding of fact arrived at by the authorities concerned on the basis of evidence on their record is, that petitioner utilises major portion of coal imported on form 31 in job work, the entitlement to form 31, is mainly based on the intention of the importer regarding purpose for which he brings or imports the goods and form 31 is a declaration for the same, therefore, once the importer declares his intention that he intends to bring or import the coal for the business purposes and obtains the form 31 for that purpose, he cannot use the coal so imported, on the purposes other than those for which he has imported the same. In the instant case, since the petitioner utilises the coal imported on form 31 admittedly for the business purposes and also for the purposes other than the business, i. e. , job work, hence the authorities have rightly imposed the condition that the petitioner shall not utilise the coal imported on form 31 for the job work which is not included in the term "business". In the considered opinion of this Court the said condition imposed by the authorities is fully in consonance with the scheme of the Act and Rules with a view to achieve the objective sought to be achieved by the Act and Rules. This is our precise reply to the next question involved in this case. 17. In the considered opinion of this Court the said condition imposed by the authorities is fully in consonance with the scheme of the Act and Rules with a view to achieve the objective sought to be achieved by the Act and Rules. This is our precise reply to the next question involved in this case. 17. Before parting with the case we would like to mention here that the Legislature has already taken care of the contravention of the provisions of section 28-A of the Act by enacting sub-sections (o) and (r) of section 15-A (1) of the Act which provides for penalties that if the assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer or other person imports or transports, or attempts to import or transport or abets the import or transport of any goods in contravention of the provisions of section 28-A of the Act, or the Rules it may, after such enquiry, if any, as it may deem necessary, direct that such dealer or person shall pay, by way of penalty, in addition to the tax, if any payable by him. Therefore, the authorities concerned are at liberty to exercise the powers conferred by sub-sections (o), (r) of section 15-A (1) of the Act strictly in accordance with law. 18. In view of the premises aforesaid, under the facts and circumstances of this case, impugned orders do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition accordingly fails and is therefore, dismissed. Writ petition dismissed. .