JUDGMENT RAJES KUMAR, J. - Present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 ("the Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated June 15, 2006 by which the Tribunal has confirmed the seizure of the goods, namely, 99 drums of agro-chemicals and the demand of security at Rs. 15 lacs. Brief facts of the case stated in the revision petition are that the applicant is a private limited company having its registered office situated at 116-A, GH-2, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and its manufacturing unit situated at District Kamrup, Assam. The applicant has branch office at Bhatinda in the State of Punjab. The applicant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of agro-chemicals. It is stated that on June 3, 2005, the applicant dispatched 75 drums and 198 bags of agro-chemicals from its manufacturing unit to its branch in the State of Punjab. The consignment was for 6,600 kg., and its value was Rs. 76,20,000. In respect of the said consignment, invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34 was issued. It is stated that on June 9, 2005 the applicant booked 117 bags and 30 drums of agro-chemicals from Kamrup, Assam to Bhatinda, Punjab. The total weight of the consignment was 6,300 kg., valuing Rs. 76,20,000. However, the transporter, M/s. Transolutions Pvt. Ltd., on the directions of the applicant, dispatched only 99 drums weighing 5,100 kg., agro-chemicals on June 9, 2005 in truck No. HR-55A/4687 by G.R. No. 6401589. The value of the consignment was Rs. 59,87,142.85. As per G.R., goods were to be transported from District Kamrup, Assam to Bhatinda, Punjab. At the entry check-post at Tamkuhiraj on the application of the driver transit pass was issued. In the transit pass, G.R. No. 6401589 dated June 9, 2005 for 99 drums, the name of consignor, consignee, 99 drums of agro-chemicals weighing 5,100 kg., valued at Rs. 59,87,142.85 were mentioned. When the vehicle reached T.P. Nagar Check-post, Ghaziabad on June 15, 2005, at the check-post, driver of the vehicle submitted the transit pass for necessary endorsement. It appears that from the possession of the driver, invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34, dated June 3, 2005 were recovered. On physical verification, 99 drums weighing 5,100 kg., agro-chemicals were found. When the vehicle reached T.P. Nagar Check-post, Ghaziabad on June 15, 2005, at the check-post, driver of the vehicle submitted the transit pass for necessary endorsement. It appears that from the possession of the driver, invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34, dated June 3, 2005 were recovered. On physical verification, 99 drums weighing 5,100 kg., agro-chemicals were found. The Check-post Officer detained the goods and issued show cause notice mainly on the ground that the goods found on physical verification did not tally with the goods mentioned in invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34. The applicant replied to the show cause notice and stated that invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34 did not relate to the consignment in dispute, namely, 99 drums, in respect of which transit pass was issued. The Check-post Officer, however, did not accept the plea of the applicant and seized the goods on the ground that the goods found on physical verification did not tally with the goods mentioned in invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34, dated June 3, 2005. The goods were seized and security at Rs. 15 lacs were demanded for the release of the goods. The applicant filed application under the proviso to section 13-A(6) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax, Check-post, Mohannagar, Ghaziabad. The application was rejected vide order dated January 28, 2006. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Check-post Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction and has illegally seized the impugned goods. He submitted that the goods were coming from Assam and were going to Bhatinda, Punjab and as required under section 28B and rule 87, the transit pass was obtained at the entry check-post, Tamkuhiraj on June 13, 2005 in respect of 99 drums of agro-chemicals weighing 5,100 kg., relating to G.R. No. 6401589 dated June 9, 2005 and the same goods were found at the entry check-post at T.P. Nagar, Ghaziabad, on physical verification on June 15, 2005. He submitted that invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34 were not relating to the impugned goods and the authorities below have illegally tried to connect invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34 both dated June 3, 2005 relating to the impugned goods and on the basis of the invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34 have illegally inferred that the goods found on physical verification did not tally with the goods mentioned in the invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34. He submitted that at the entry check-post, the Check-post Officer could only verify the goods with reference to the goods mentioned in the transit pass and the G.R. mentioned in the transit pass and not with reference to any other documents. He submitted that the seizure was patently illegal and as a result of harassment. He also claimed the loss suffered by the applicant. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that since the invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34 were found from the possession of the driver and no other document relating to the impugned 99 drums were found, it was rightly inferred by the Check-post Officer that invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34, dated June 3, 2005 related to the impugned goods and since the impugned goods did not tally with the goods mentioned in the invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34, it has been rightly inferred that the goods relating to invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34 were sold inside the State of U.P. and other goods have been loaded in the vehicle. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. Record of the case has also been produced during the course of hearing, which has been perused. In the present case, there is no dispute that the goods were coming from Kamrup, Assam. Since they were going to Bhatinda, Punjab, at the entry check-post, Tamkuhiraj on June 13, 2005, transit pass No. 1006 for 99 drums of agro-chemicals weighing 5,100 kg., valuing Rs. 59,87,142.85 was issued. In the transit pass, G.R. No. 6401589 dated June 9, 2005 was also mentioned, which was for 99 drums. Since they were going to Bhatinda, Punjab, at the entry check-post, Tamkuhiraj on June 13, 2005, transit pass No. 1006 for 99 drums of agro-chemicals weighing 5,100 kg., valuing Rs. 59,87,142.85 was issued. In the transit pass, G.R. No. 6401589 dated June 9, 2005 was also mentioned, which was for 99 drums. There is no dispute that at the exit check-post at T.P. Nagar, Ghaziabad, when the aforesaid transit pass was submitted for endorsement on June 15, 2005, on physical verification 99 drums of agro-chemicals weighing 5,100 kg., were found. Thus, the goods, which were found on physical verification were the same goods mentioned in the transit pass and no difference was found. The Check-post Officer, T.P. Nagar, Ghaziabad has illegally tried to connect the goods with invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34, while the case of the applicant was that these two documents did not relate to the impugned goods and relate to the different transaction. I have perused invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34. None of the descriptions of the aforesaid documents relates to the impugned goods. In the delivery note No. 34, different date of G.R. and lorry number were mentioned. The number of the drum and weight were also different. Thus, there appears to be no reason to connect the impugned goods with invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34. Section 28-B of the Act and rule 87 read as follows : "Section 28-B. Transit of goods by road through the State and issue of authorisation for transit of goods. Thus, there appears to be no reason to connect the impugned goods with invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34. Section 28-B of the Act and rule 87 read as follows : "Section 28-B. Transit of goods by road through the State and issue of authorisation for transit of goods. - When a vehicle coming from any place outside the State and bound for any other place outside the State, and carrying goods referred to in sub-section (1) of section 28A, passes through the State, the driver or other person in-charge of such vehicle shall obtain in the prescribed manner an authorisation for transit of goods from the Officer-in-charge of the first check-post or barrier after his entry into the State and deliver it to the Officer-in-charge of the last check-post or barrier before his exit from the State, failing which it shall be presumed that the goods carried thereby have been sold within the State by the owner or person in-charge of the vehicle : Provided that where the goods carried by such vehicle are, after their entry into the State, transported outside the State by any other vehicle or conveyance, the onus of proving that goods have actually moved out of the State shall be on the owner or person in-charge of the vehicle. Explanation. - In a case where a vehicle owned by a person is hired for transportation of goods by some other person, the hirer of the vehicle shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle." "Rule 87. The transit of goods by road through the State. - (1) The driver or person in-charge of a vehicle coming from any place outside the State and bound for any other place outside the State shall present the trip sheet in triplicate to the officer-in-charge of the check-post or barrier, if any, established near the point of entry into the State hereinafter referred to as entry check-post. - (1) The driver or person in-charge of a vehicle coming from any place outside the State and bound for any other place outside the State shall present the trip sheet in triplicate to the officer-in-charge of the check-post or barrier, if any, established near the point of entry into the State hereinafter referred to as entry check-post. (2) The officer-in-charge of the entry check-post shall after examining the document and after making such enquiries as he deems necessary specify on all the copies of the trip sheet the check-post or the barrier (the exit check-post) of the State to be crossed by the vehicle or vessel and the time and date up to which it should be so crossed and deliver two copies of the trip sheet to the driver or person in-charge of the vehicle retaining one copy himself. (3) The driver or person in-charge of the vehicle or vessel shall stop his vehicle at such exit check-post surrender one copy of the trip sheet and allow the officer-in-charge of the check-post to inspect the documents, consignments and goods in order to ensure that the consignments being taken out of the State are the same as mentioned in the trip sheet. The officer-in-charge of the exit check-post shall issue a receipt on the other copy of the trip sheet surrendered by such driver or person in-charge of the vehicle. (4) The officer-in-charge of the exit check-post shall have the power to detain, unload and search the contents of the vehicle for the purpose mentioned in sub-rule (3)." Section 28B of the Act is a machinery section to check the evasion of tax. It is not a charging section. Every person has a right to move freely and to carry goods throughout the territory of India as guaranteed by articles 19 and 301 of the Constitution of India. The State Legislature is competent to make the law for levy of tax on purchases and sales of any goods other than newspaper under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and as an incidental and ancillary power, can also enact machinery provisions to check the evasion of tax. The State Legislature is competent to make the law for levy of tax on purchases and sales of any goods other than newspaper under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and as an incidental and ancillary power, can also enact machinery provisions to check the evasion of tax. If any person wants to carry the goods from one place to another place through the State of U.P., in order to ensure that such goods have not been sold inside the State of U.P., the provisions of section 28B have been introduced. The validity of section 28B of the Act has been challenged before the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sodhi Transport Co. v. State of U.P. reported in [1986] 62 STC 381; [1986] UPTC 721. The apex court held as follows : "para 8. Now the impugned provisions are just machinery provisions. They do not levy any charge by themselves. They are enacted to ensure that there is no evasion of tax. As already observed, the Act is traceable to entry 54 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which reads thus : 54. Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, subject to the provisions of entry 92A of List I'. It is well-settled that when the Legislature has the power to make a law with respect to any subject it has all the ancillary and incidental powers to make the law effective. para 9. The provisions of section 28B of the Act and rule 87 of the Rules which are impugned in these cases as mentioned above are just machinery provisions. They impose no charge on the subject. They are enacted to ensure that a person who has brought the goods inside the State and who has made a declaration that the goods are brought into the State for the purpose of carrying them outside the State should actually take them outside the State. If he hands over the transit pass while taking the goods outside the State then there would be no liability at all. It is only when he does not deliver the transit pass at the exit check-post as undertaken by him, the question of raising a presumption against him would arise. If he hands over the transit pass while taking the goods outside the State then there would be no liability at all. It is only when he does not deliver the transit pass at the exit check-post as undertaken by him, the question of raising a presumption against him would arise. We shall revert to the question of presumption again at a later stage, but it is sufficient to say here that these provisions are enacted to make the law workable and to prevent evasion. Such provisions fall within the ambit and scope of the power to levy the tax itself. para 14. A presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie case for party in whose favour it exists. It is a rule concerning evidence. It indicates the person on whom the burden of proof lies. When presumption is conclusive, it obviates the production of any other evidence to dislodge the conclusion to be drawn on proof of certain facts. But when it is rebuttable it only points out the party on whom lies the duty of going forward with evidence on the fact presumed, and when that party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed the purpose of presumption is over. Then the evidence will determine the true nature of the fact to be established. The rules of presumption are deduced from enlightened human knowledge and experience and are drawn from the connection, relation and coincidence of facts and circumstances. Para 16. In our opinion a statutory provision which creates a rebuttable presumption as regards the proof of a set of circumstances which would make a transaction liable to tax with the object of preventing evasion of the tax cannot be considered as conferring on the authority concerned the power to levy a tax which the Legislature cannot otherwise levy. Para 16. In our opinion a statutory provision which creates a rebuttable presumption as regards the proof of a set of circumstances which would make a transaction liable to tax with the object of preventing evasion of the tax cannot be considered as conferring on the authority concerned the power to levy a tax which the Legislature cannot otherwise levy. A rebuttable presumption which is clearly a rule of evidence has the effect of shifting the burden of proof and it is hard to see how it is unconstitutional when the person concerned has the opportunity to displace the presumption by leading evidence." In the case of Madhya Bharat Transport Carrier, Agra v. Commissioner of Trade Tax reported in [2006] 143 STC 493 (All); [2003] 23 NTN 1009, this court held that at the exit check-post, officer concerned should verify the goods only with reference to the goods mentioned in transit pass. This court held as follows : "In my view, since on verification the same number of packages and the same description of goods were found on physical verification as mentioned in GR's and in form XXXIV, it cannot be said that the goods were not relating to form XXXIV No. 4135/5309 dated November 23, 2002. At the exit check-post, necessary verification should be made only with reference to the details of the goods mentioned in form XXXIV. The details, which are not mentioned in form XXXIV should not be considered at the exit check-post." In view of the fact that in the present case exactly the same goods were found at the entry check-post on physical verification which were mentioned in the transit pass, the detention of the goods and subsequent seizure of the goods were patently erroneous. Both the detention and seizure of the goods were as a result of harassment on the part of the Check-post Officer. The Tribunal has also not examined the matter judiciously, in accordance with law and based its decision on irrelevant considerations. In the result, the revision is allowed. The orders of the Tribunal and the authorities below seizing 99 drums of agro-chemicals are set aside. The Check-post Officer, T.P. Nagar, Ghaziabad, is directed to release the goods forthwith without any security within three days from the date of filing of certified copy of the order. The applicant is also entitled for costs, which I assess at Rs. The orders of the Tribunal and the authorities below seizing 99 drums of agro-chemicals are set aside. The Check-post Officer, T.P. Nagar, Ghaziabad, is directed to release the goods forthwith without any security within three days from the date of filing of certified copy of the order. The applicant is also entitled for costs, which I assess at Rs. 20,000 (rupees twenty thousand) to be paid within fifteen days. It will be open to the applicant to take appropriate action in accordance with law for the losses suffered by it.