RAJESH KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) PRESENT revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 25. 09. 1999 relating to the assessment year 1981-82. ( 2 ) APPLICANT is a transporter and engaged in the business of transporting the goods of the various parties from one place to another place. Ex-parte assessment order was passed against the applicant on the basis of the information received from the Fatehpuri Sikri Check Post that the applicant had obtained Form-34, which could not surrendered at the exit check post. Since the order passed was ex-parte, the same was set aside in the appeal and the matter was remanded back to the assessing authority to pass the assessment order afresh after providing opportunity to the applicant. In pursuance thereof assessment proceedings was taken up by the assessing authority. As against the 19 transactions, applicant furnished the evidences relating to 10 transactions to establish that the goods had gone outside the State of U. P. and Form-34 was surrendered at the exit check post. In respect of 9 transactions, applicant claimed that such transaction did not relate to it and requested that Form-34 and other documents may be confronted but the same could not be confronted and the assessing authority drawn adverse inference and assessed the applicant in respect of the said transactions. Applicant filed appeal before Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Agra. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), sales Tax, Agra vide order dated 30. 03. 1992 allowed the appeal and again remanded back the matter to the assessing authority with the direction to the assessing authority to make detailed enquiry. It was further directed that in respect of the alleged Form-34, complete details should be provided to the applicant and in the absence of Form-34, necessary details be obtained from panji-3 and be confronted to the applicant. It appears that in pursuance of the appellate order, assessing authority tried to obtain Panji-3 register from the entry check post but the same could not be obtained on the ground that it was not traceable. It appears that in pursuance of the appellate order, assessing authority tried to obtain Panji-3 register from the entry check post but the same could not be obtained on the ground that it was not traceable. Assessing authority, however, drawn adverse inference against 9 Form-34 on the ground that in respect of the said Form-34, no evidence had been adduced by the applicant to prove that the said Form-34 were surrendered at the exit check post and the goods had gone outside the State of U. P. Assessing authority observed that when applicant could furnish the evidences in respect of those Form-34 in respect of which also Form-34 and Panji-3 were not confronted, the applicant could also furnish the evidence in respect of the alleged 9 Form-34 also. In the absence of any evidence of their being surrendered at the exit check post, assessing authority presumed that the goods have been sold inside the State of U. P. and accordingly, assessment order was passed. Appeal filed against the assessment order was rejected by the first appellate authority. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which has also been rejected by the impugned order. ( 3 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submitted that at no stage impugned Form-34 were confronted in respect of which it was alleged that the said Form-34 were obtained by the applicant and could not be surrendered at the exit check post. He submitted that inspite of the direction given by the first appellate authority, Panji-3 and the details mentioned therein could not be confronted. In this view of the matter. he submitted that the revenue failed to prove that alleged 9 Form-34 were obtained by the applicant. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the information received from the check post was confronted, which consists of Form-34 number, vehicle number and the items for which Form-34 were issued. He submitted that Form-34 in original and Panji-3, a register maintained at the check post relating to the issue of Form-34, could not be confronted to the applicant as the same were not traceable at the check post, as the matter being quite old. He submitted that Form-34 in original and Panji-3, a register maintained at the check post relating to the issue of Form-34, could not be confronted to the applicant as the same were not traceable at the check post, as the matter being quite old. He further submitted that on the basis of the similar information when the applicant could furnish evidences in respect of other bahati, applicant should furnish the necessary evidences in respect of Form-34 also and in the absence of any evidence being produced, assessing authority has rightly presumed that the Form-34 were issued to the applicant and the same could not be surrendered at the exit check post. ( 5 ) HAVING Heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, Form-34, which are claimed to have been issued to the applicant have not been confronted to the applicant and Panji-3, a register which is claimed to have been maintained at the entry check post relating to the issuance of Form-34 has also not been confronted to the applicant. Applicant had denied to have been issued such impugned Form-34. In this view of the matter, it was incumbent upon the assessing authority to establish that such Form-34 were issued to the applicant and in support of the claim, copy of Form-34 should have been confronted to the applicant. This aspect of the matter has been considered in detail by this Court in the case of escorts Limited, Faridabad v. CST reported in 2004 NTN (24), 558 On the consideration of section 28-B of the Act and Rule 87 this Court held as follows: perusal of Section 28-B of the Act shows that in case of non-surrender of Form 34, it may be presumed that the goods for which Form 34 was obtained had been sold inside the State of u. P. Therefore, before taking any action against any person, it has to be primarily established that alleged Form 34 is obtained by the person against whom presumption is sought to be raised. On the receipt of the information from the check post about non-surrender of Form 34 and in pursuance thereof when the notice is issued to the person, there can be two situations, firstly, that the person may accept the information relating to it and either furnish the evidence to rebut the presumption or fail to rebut the presumption and secondly, person concerned disputes the information connected to it, in such a situation burden lie on the revenue to prove that said information relates to the applicant and the alleged Form 34 was obtained by it as per procedure contemplated under Rule 87, driver of the vehicle or the person-in-charge submits three copies of Form 34 at the entry check post. One copy is being retained by the entry check post officer and two copies are provided to the driver of the vehicle-in-charge. Then both copies of Forms-34, are being surrendered at the exit check post. Officer of the exit check post put the signature on both the Forms 34, retains one copy of Form 34 and return one copy of said Form 34 after necessary endorsement to the driver or vehicle in-charge. In case, if the officer concerned does not receive information from the exit check post about surrender of Form 34 issued by the entry check post or receives information that said Form 34 has not been surrendered, necessary proceeding is being taken on the presumption that goods have been sold against the owner of the vehicle or person-in-charge. In such proceeding, it is obligatory to confront the copy of Form 34 which bears the signature of the driver or the vehicle-in-charge. Form 34 is the primary evidence on the basis of which the proceeding is initiated and the adverse inference is being proposed and, therefore, it has to be confronted. It is the case of the revenue that they maintain panji 3 at the entry check post in which the details of Form 34 are being incorporated as a record. In my opinion, panji 3 is the record maintained by the revenue authority and has no concerned with the driver or person-in-charge. In panji 3, the signatures of the driver or the persons concerned are not been taken and, therefore, entry of panji 3 cannot be held binding on the driver or the person-in-charge. ( 7 ) IN the case of Jaipur Golden Transport Co. In panji 3, the signatures of the driver or the persons concerned are not been taken and, therefore, entry of panji 3 cannot be held binding on the driver or the person-in-charge. ( 7 ) IN the case of Jaipur Golden Transport Co. v. CTT reported in 2005 NTN (26) 306, this court reiterated the aforesaid view taken in the case of Escorts Limited, Faridabad v. CST (Supra) and further held as follows: in my opinion, in case, where the party disputes that information and any connection of the alleged Form 34 with it, it is obligatory upon the officer concern to confront the Form 34 or any other document signed or acknowledged by party concern to prove that said Form 34 was obtained by it. Entries of Panji 3 is also neither signed nor acknowledged by the driver. Therefore, information on the basis of the entries made in panji 3 cannot be held binding upon the applicant and cannot be relied upon In the absence of copies of Form 34, if the revenue wants to rely upon the entries of panji 3 and wants to take action on the basis of the entries of panji 3 a very heavy burden lies upon the revenue to establish that these entries relate to the person concerned by other corroborative evidence. In the present case, such burden has not been discharged. In my view, Section 28-B of the Act only raises presumption of sale of goods inside the State, by the driver or the person-in-charge in case of non-surrender of Form 34. Therefore, it is not safe to presume the sale inside the State on the basis of the entry of panji 3 which has not been signed or acknowledged by the driver or the person-in-charge for creating the liability of tax in absence of specific evidence of sale. ( 8 ) SIMILAR view has also been taken by this Court in the case of CTT v. S/s Economic transport Organisation, Kanpur reported in 2005 NTN (27) 278, and in the case of CTT v. S/s Carryco Road Carriers, Kanpur reported in 2005 NTN (28), 185. ( 9 ) IN the present case, applicant had disputed to have been issued alleged Form-34. Admittedly, at no stage such Form-34 were confronted or any other documents acknowledged by the applicant were produced to prove that the alleged Form-34 were issued to the applicant. ( 9 ) IN the present case, applicant had disputed to have been issued alleged Form-34. Admittedly, at no stage such Form-34 were confronted or any other documents acknowledged by the applicant were produced to prove that the alleged Form-34 were issued to the applicant. In the circumstances, revenue failed to prove that the alleged 9 Form-34 were issued to the applicant and thus, assessment made against the applicant on the basis of the alleged Form-34 is erroneous and liable to be set aside. ( 10 ) IN the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside. . .