M. C. AGARWAL, J. This is a revision petition under section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") preferred by the dealer against an order dated July 7, 1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, in appeal No. 210 of 1999 against an order under section 13-A (6) of the Act. 2. I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Tarun Agarwal, Advocate for the revisionist and Sri S. D. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the Commissioner-respondent. 3. On June 12, 1999 one Anil Kumar was carrying a consignment of 75 packages (cartons) of medicines from Delhi Airport to Meerut in a Armada jeep bearing No. HR-51-D-5982. While passing by the trade tax check-post (now known as Sahayata Kendra) at Mohannagar he did not report there and proceeded further. An officer of the department then chased him and about half a kilometre from the said check-post he was stopped and the said vehicle was brought to the check-post. On checking, he was found to be carrying the aforesaid consignment from Delhi to Meerut without any papers. The goods were, therefore, detained and a show cause notice was issued to him whereupon he filed a reply the next day that was a Monday on behalf of M/s. Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut, the present revisionist in which it was stated that he was bringing the goods for the first time and did not know about the check-post and that the goods were brought from Bombay to Delhi by cargo and it was a stock transfer of medicines by M/s. Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited, Bhiwandi to its branch office at Meerut. It was also stated that the Meerut office of the company was a registered dealer and a form XXXI bearing number 1445930 is being produced. 4. This explanation was not accepted and the goods were seized and ordered to be released on furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 20,03,690 being 40 per cent of the value of the goods that was estimated at Rs. 50,09,200. The representation under section 13-A (6) of the Act was rejected and so has been the appeal. 4. This explanation was not accepted and the goods were seized and ordered to be released on furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 20,03,690 being 40 per cent of the value of the goods that was estimated at Rs. 50,09,200. The representation under section 13-A (6) of the Act was rejected and so has been the appeal. The Tribunal took the view that there appeared to be an attempt to evade tax as the consignment was not accompanied by any papers and it was attempted to be carried through a document of M/s. Knoll Pharmaceuticals Limited which related to only one piece of exempted goods. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that while it is true that the driver of the aforesaid vehicle did not carry any papers with him while taking the goods from Delhi Airport to Meerut but that it was a mere technical default arising from the fact probably that the carrier did not know the procedure and that inspite of this default there was no reason for seizing the goods as there was no intention to evade tax. He placed reliance on Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. v. State of U. P. [1983] 53 STC 54 (All.); 1983 UPTC 198 in which it was observed (see page 68 of STC; paragraph 23 in UPTC) that the power to detain the goods and levy penalty in respect thereof cannot be exercised merely for the reason that the said goods were not accompanied by the requisite documents or that the documents accompanying them were false. This power can be exercised only if apart from a default in carrying the requisite documents, there is material before the detaining authority to indicate that the goods are being imported in an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under the Act. Reliance is also placed on similar observations in Prakash Pipes & Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1997 UPTC 328. The learned Standing Counsel did not challenge the legal position as enunciated in the aforesaid rulings. 6. The question thus remains whether there were any circumstance to show that in the omission to carry the relevant documents particularly form XXXI there was any indication of an attempt to evade tax. 7. The learned Standing Counsel did not challenge the legal position as enunciated in the aforesaid rulings. 6. The question thus remains whether there were any circumstance to show that in the omission to carry the relevant documents particularly form XXXI there was any indication of an attempt to evade tax. 7. M/s. Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited, Bhiwandi, appears to be a big manufacturer of medicines and even its Meerut branch is a registered dealer with considerable sales. Annexure 14 to the revision petition is the assessment order dated November 7, 1998 for assessment year 1996-97 of the Meerut branch which shows that its books of account have been accepted and the turnover was assessed at Rs. 5,38,82,337 and tax was assessed at Rs. 41,01,937 and the whole of the tax and something more was already deposited. The goods were sent by the Bombay office to the branch at Meerut as an urgent consignment through Aramex Cargo. Along with the reply the Airway bill No. 133881 dated June 10, 1999, the stock transfer note dated June 9, 1999, the excise gate pass and a form XXXI were produced before the concerned officer on June 13, 1999. All these documents established that 75 packages of medicines valued at Rs. 36,77,438 were being sent by the Bombay office of the revisionist to the Meerut branch. Airway bill showed that it was an urgent cargo which was intended to be delivered before 12 noon on June 12, 1999. It is this hurry that seems to have led the carrier, i. e. , M/s. Ammex Cargo to its failure to ensure that the relevant papers are handed over to the driver of the vehicle to be carried with the consignment. The promptness with which the papers could be produced before the check-post officer shows that they were already there and have not been manipulated after the detention of the goods. 8. The driver of the vehicle, i. e. , Anil Kumar, was examined by the officer concerned and his statement was recorded. There is nothing in his statement that raises suspicion of an attempt to evade the check-post or to have been a party to a plan of tax evasion. Admittedly, no barrier has been placed on the road which may necessitate a person to stop at the Sahayata Kendra which is located by the side of the road. There is nothing in his statement that raises suspicion of an attempt to evade the check-post or to have been a party to a plan of tax evasion. Admittedly, no barrier has been placed on the road which may necessitate a person to stop at the Sahayata Kendra which is located by the side of the road. There is nothing to show that Anil Kumar tried to run away and had to be given a hot chase. He stopped as soon as he was instructed to do and willingly went to the check-post. There is nothing to show that he made any misrepresentation. Along with the goods, there was one more consignment of a single packet in relation to which there was a certificate from M/s. Knoll Pharmaceuticals who had stated that the package consisted of printed stationery exempt from tax. That package was there in the vehicle and Anil Kumar never stated that the certificate of M/s. Knoll Pharmaceuticals was in respect of the 75 packages in question. He is not shown to have stated that the 75 packages were not of medicines but of printed stationery. The Tribunal has without any reason linked that document with the consignment in question to assume that there was an intention to evade tax. The circumstances mentioned above, indicate that the omission to carry requisite documents with the consignment was an omission arising of an accidental slip and the conduct of a dealer as indicated by the circumstances mentioned above, negatived an assumption that there could be an attempt to evade tax. The latest assessment completely projects the revisionist as an honest taxpayer. In my view, therefore, the Tribunals assumption that there was an attempt to evade tax is not based on any material and the seizure, therefore, cannot be sustained. 9. The revision petition is, accordingly, Cowed. The Tribunals order dated July 7, 1999 is set aside and the dealers aforesaid appeal is ordered to stand allowed. The seizure order is quashed and the respondent is directed to release the goods in favour of the revisionist forthwith. Petition allowed. .