JUDGMENT By means of present petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the seizure order dated August 29, 2007 passed under section 13A(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") annexure 1 to the writ petition. After seizing the goods on the value of Rs. 18,03,750, a sum of Rs. 4,32,900 has been demanded towards security. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of deshi ghee in its factory situated at Aligarh. It is claimed that the petitioner had sale depots in different States across the country and used to transfer the manufactured goods by way of stock transfer for sale. On August 21, 2007 the petitioner dispatched 925 tins of deshi ghee to its depot Bhiwandi, District Thane (Maharashtra) against stock transfer note No. 00189 dated August 21, 2007. The Bilty No. 5369 dated August 21, 2007 for the transportation of the goods has also been prepared for the transportation of the goods. When the goods was in transit, the Assistant Commissioner, (Mobile Squad) Unit II, Trade Tax, Agra, intercepted the vehicle loaded with the aforesaid goods on August 21, 2007 at 11.50 p.m. and for the purposes of the verification, the goods was detained and a detention memo was issued. The petitioner filed reply to the detention memo and submitted therein that the goods was being dispatched by way of stock transfer to its depot. It was submitted that 9R was not obtained because there was no sale but the dispatch of the goods by way of stock transfer to the depot. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued on August 23, 2007. The petitioner filed reply to the show-cause notice. In the reply, it was stated that the stock register is being produced which is certified by the Registrar, Mandi Samiti, Aligarh. It was further stated that the transactions were duly recorded in the stock register and there was no case of suppression of the turnover. Copies of the stock register were also filed. It was also explained that 9R could not be obtained because it was not a case of sale but stock transfer. It was further stated that the transactions were duly recorded in the stock register and there was no case of suppression of the turnover. Copies of the stock register were also filed. It was also explained that 9R could not be obtained because it was not a case of sale but stock transfer. The Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Agra however has not accepted the plea of the petitioner and vide impugned seizure order dated August 29, 2007 seized the goods. The goods have been mainly seized on the ground that the petitioner could not obtain 9R prescribed under the Mandi Adhiniyam in respect of the transaction and it has been inferred that the entry of such transaction was doubtful in the books of account. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under section 13A(1A) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act the goods can only be seized when goods are not traceable to bona fide dealer and it is doubtful if such goods are properly - accounted for in the books of account, register or other documents. It is submitted that the petitioner is a registered dealer and it is not doubted that the goods belonged to the petitioner. He further submitted that no case has been made out that the goods was not found entered in the books of account. He submitted that the books of account were produced before the officer concerned for the verification of the entries and in the seizure order no finding has been recorded that such books of account have not been produced and the entries of the goods were not found available in such books of account. He submitted that in the writ petition in paragraphs 6 and 11 it was submitted that the entries are available in the books of account and the necessary information of the dispatch of the goods was given by E-mail. The averment made in the aforesaid paragraphs have not been disputed in the counter-affidavit. He submitted that on earlier occasion also, on the same ground goods were seized by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, but subsequently they were released by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated July 5, 2007, copy of the order is at page 42. The averment made in the aforesaid paragraphs have not been disputed in the counter-affidavit. He submitted that on earlier occasion also, on the same ground goods were seized by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, but subsequently they were released by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated July 5, 2007, copy of the order is at page 42. In view of the above submission, he submitted that the seizure of the goods is patently erroneous. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the goods was not accompanied by the requisite documents prescribed under the Mandi Adhiniyam. He submitted that the authority concerned has found that the transaction was inter-State sales and on the garb of the stock transfer the petitioner is evading the tax. He further submitted that the authority concerned has recorded the finding that the entries of the goods in the books of account is doubtful. He accordingly justifies the seizure of the goods. We have heard learned counsel for the parries. We have perused the seizure order and other documents annexed with the writ petition and counter and rejoinder affidavit. Section 13A(1A) of the Act reads as follows :- "Section 13A. Power to seize. - (1) ... (1A) Where any officer empowered by the State Government in this behalf has reason to believe that the goods found in any vehicle, building or place are not traced to any bona fide dealer or that it is doubtful if such goods are properly accounted for by any dealer in his accounts, registers or other documents, maintained in the course of his business, he shall have power to seize such goods and the remaining provisions of this section shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to such seizure." A perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that the goods can only be seized on the condition when the officer has reason to believe that the goods found in the vehicle is not traceable to bona fide dealer or that it is doubtful if such goods are properly accounted for by any dealer in his accounts, register or other documents maintained in the course of his business. Therefore, for the seizure of the goods, the authority concerned on the basis of the material has to arrive to a conclusion that the goods are not properly accounted for in the books of account. Therefore, for the seizure of the goods, the authority concerned on the basis of the material has to arrive to a conclusion that the goods are not properly accounted for in the books of account. In the present case, the goods have been seized merely on the ground that the requisite documents prescribed under the Mandi Adhiniyam were not accompanied with the goods. No finding has been recorded that the goods were not found properly entered in the books of account. In reply to the show cause notice the petitioner has categorically submitted that the stock registers were being produced in which the entries of the goods were available and copies of stock register were also filed. In the seizure order there is nothing to show that the books of account have not been produced and the entries of the goods were not found available in the books of account. Whether the transaction was stock transfer or inter-State sales is a matter of consideration and adjudication in assessment proceeding. At this stage, the opinion formed by the officer concerned that the transaction was inter-State sales and not stock transfer and therefore the goods is liable to be seized is not justified. The claim of the petitioner that before the dispatch of the goods, the necessary information was given by E-mail has not been denied in the counter-affidavit. It may be mentioned here that on the earlier occasions also on the same ground the Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax had seized the goods. On the application under the proviso of section 13A(6) of the Act, the seizures were held illegal and the goods have been directed to be released without any security. Copy of the order is at page 42 to the writ petition. In view of the above, we are of the view that the seizure of the goods is patently illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. We are of the view that the respondent is repeatedly seizing the goods contrary to the provision of the Act to harass the petitioner. In view of the above, we are of the view that the seizure of the goods is patently illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. We are of the view that the respondent is repeatedly seizing the goods contrary to the provision of the Act to harass the petitioner. We are aware that against the seizure order, petitioner has a right to move application before the Deputy Commissioner under the proviso of section 13A(6) of the Act and thereafter to file an appeal under section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we proceed to decide the writ petition on merits as no disputed question of fact is involved and seizure order is patently contrary to law and without jurisdiction. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The seizure order dated August 29, 2007 (annexure 1 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to release the goods forthwith. Certified copy of this order may be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner within 24 hours on payment of usual charges.