M. C. AGARWAL, J. This revision petition under section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against an order dated March 21, 1998 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, whereby it dismissed the dealers second appeal No. 636 of 1997 for assessment year 1995-96 against the levy of a penalty of Rs. 1,37,064 under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act. 2. I have heard Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the Commissioner-respondent. 3. The facts of the case are that on May 3, 1995 a consignment of 10 barrels of glycerine and 1,000 kg. of pentreythrial was being sent by M/s. Aureole Rubber (P) Ltd. , Delhi, to the revisionist situate at Noida. The consignment was being carried in a tempo but was not accompanied by form XXXI. Although the other papers, i. e. , the bill, invoice, gate pass, etc. , were available with the driver of die tempo. The vehicle was checked by the Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad II, Noida, and the goods were detained as the consignment was being carried in violation of section 28-A of the Act. The consignor aforesaid filed objection on May 6, 1995 contending that the goods were being supplied to the present revisionist in pursuance of its order dated May 3, 1995 and the purchaser had sent to it [m/s. Aureole Rubber (P) Ltd. , Delhi] a form XXXI No. 092979 which they forgot to deliver to the driver of the tempo. This contention was not accepted and the penalty in the sum of Rs. 1,37,064 was levied on the said consignor, who preferred appeal No. 779 of 1995 before the Assistant Commissioner, who by order dated October 23, 1996 allowed the appeal and cancelled the penalty. His finding was that, according to the terms of the contract the goods had to be delivered at the place of the purchaser who had sent a form XXXI and there was no intention to evade tax. The Revenue did not challenge the said order of the Assistant Commissioner. 4. His finding was that, according to the terms of the contract the goods had to be delivered at the place of the purchaser who had sent a form XXXI and there was no intention to evade tax. The Revenue did not challenge the said order of the Assistant Commissioner. 4. The assessing officer of the present revisionist also initiated proceedings for the levy of penalty under section 15-A (1) (e) of the Act on the revisionist and levied the same amount of penalty holding that it was the obligation of the dealer, i. e. , the present revisionist to ensure that the consignment was accompanied by all papers. The dealer preferred first appeal and second appeal both of which have failed. 5. As is evident, the penalty in question has been levied and sustained only on the ground that the consignment was not accompanied by form XXXI. The finding in the earlier proceedings was that the seller had to supply the goods at the business place, i. e. , the factory of the purchaser, M/s. Noida, Polychem Pvt. Ltd. This was the explanation offered by the seller. The assessing officer of the present revisionist has made a reference to this in the order dated April 23, 1996 levying penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act, copy of which is annexure 4 to the revision petition. In the penalty proceedings, the dealers explanation was that the default, if any, was on the part of the seller, M/s. Aureole Rubber (P) Ltd. , because the purchaser had sent form XXXI to it. As stated above, the Trade Tax Officer has held the present dealer to be responsible. According to him, it should have ensured that form XXXI accompanied the consignment. It may be mentioned here that when the goods were seized it was the seller aforesaid who filed objections and who ultimately deposited the security demanded and in whose favour the goods were released by the Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad. It means that the said M/s. Aureole Rubber (P) Ltd. , was the owner of the goods when they were detained. 6. Section 28-A of the Act requires that 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 outside the State - shall obtain the prescribed form of declaration. 6. Section 28-A of the Act requires that 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 outside the State - shall obtain the prescribed form of declaration. Sub-section (2) of section 28-A provides that the importer shall furnish to the consignor the declaration in the prescribed form in duplicate duly filled in and signed by him and the driver or any other person-in-charge of any vehicle carrying any such goods shall carry with him the copies of such declaration - and shall before crossing any check-post or barrier established under section 28, deliver one copy of such declaration to the officer-in-charge of such check-post. Since the revisionist had placed an order for the supply of the goods at his place, he was an importer within the meaning of section 28-A of the Act and the only obligation was to furnish to the consignor a declaration in the prescribed form. Admittedly, the prescribed form is form XXXI. The purchaser having furnished the form to the consignor it was for the consignor to hand over the same to the transporter with instructions to carry the same along with the goods. In the present case the contention of the present assessee as well as that of the consignor was that the present dealer did furnish form XXXI to the consignor. This contention was accepted in the proceedings against M/s. Aureole Rubber (P) Ltd. and the assessing officer of the present assessee has also not negatived this contention. 7. Rule 84 of the U. P. Trade Tax Rules deals with inspection of goods in transit and sub-rule (3) thereof provides that if on examination the officer finds that any consignment is not covered by one or more of the documents, the officer shall immediately issue a notice to the driver or person-in-charge of the vehicle to show cause why the goods be not seized. Rule 85 provides that the person desirous of importing or receiving into the State - 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 ). Rule 85 provides that the person desirous of importing or receiving into the State - 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 ). These statutory provisions indicate that if a person who wants to receive into die State some goods like the present revisionist furnishes to the consignor requisite form XXXI, such dealer cannot be published by levy of penalty if the consignor fads to deliver to the transporter the concerned form XXXI or the driver of the vehicle fails to carry the same along with the goods. 8. In the Present case, as contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionist, the goods were agreed to be supplied at the revisionists place of business. Therefore, it was for the consignor who continued to be the owner of the goods to comply with all the provisions of law relating to the transport of goods from Delhi to U. P. According to him, therefore, and in my view rightly the consignor was the actual importer who was bringing the goods from Delhi to the State of U. P. for being supplied to the dealer-revisionist who was only a deemed importer as it was to receive the goods and its legal obligation was merely to furnish to the consignor a form XXXI. As assumed by the assessing officer, it was not within the powers of the present revisionist to enforce compliance of the Rules by the consignor who was not acting as its agent or principal. 9. Learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the contention that form XXXI was not delivered to the transporter by mistake is an afterthought. For this observation, reliance is placed on the circumstance that the consignor filed his objections on May 6, 1995. The Tribunal has also observed that if form XXXI had been sent to the consignor then the same could have been produced as soon as the goods were detained and there was no reason for not producing the same for three days. These are observations about the conduct of a third person, i. e. , the consignor. The Tribunal has also observed that if form XXXI had been sent to the consignor then the same could have been produced as soon as the goods were detained and there was no reason for not producing the same for three days. These are observations about the conduct of a third person, i. e. , the consignor. So far as the present revisionist is concerned, there is nothing to show that it did not supply to the consignor a form XXXI which was necessary for bringing the goods from Delhi to the State of U. P. The Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, should have immediately on the detention of the goods contacted the present revisionist to find out if any form XXXI had been issued, but that was not done and, therefore, it cannot be assumed that merely because the consignor filed his objections after three days the present revisionist had not furnished form XXXI to the consignor. Even if, the dealer-revisionist had not sent any form XXXI it cannot be burdened with penalty because the goods belonged to the consignor who admittedly was transporting the same from Delhi to U. P. and was the person who was obliged to comply with the provisions of section 28-A. The revisionists obligation was only to furnish form XXXI. Even if it did not furnish form XXXI, the revisionist cannot be penalised for the action of the consignor who should not have despatched the goods for entering into U. P. without securing a form XXXI from the revisionist. 10. For the above reasons, the levy of penalty on the revisionist cannot be sustained. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed. The Tribunals order dated March 21, 1998 is set aside and it is ordered that the dealers second appeal No. 636 of 1997 will stand allowed and the penalty in question is quashed. Petition allowed. .