JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna J. - The present revision is under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and it relates to the assessment year 1986-87 and is directed against the order dated November 16, 1998, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad in Second Appeal No. 138 of 1998. The only point mooted in the present revision is whether the applicant is "owner" of the vehicle for the purposes of section 28B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. It is not in dispute that the applicant was the owner of the vehicle No. URW 574. According to the applicant the said vehicle was given under hire to the transport company, namely, M/s. New Delhi Highway Express Transport Company and M/s. National Highway Carrier, Delhi, who transported the goods in question. Proceedings under the U.P. Trade Tax Act were initiated against the applicant under section 28B on the ground that certain forms 34 detailed in the assessment order which were got issued at the entry check-post were not surrendered at the exit check-post and as such a presumption under the Act was drawn against the applicant that the goods covered by the said forms 34 have been disposed of or sold in the State of U.P. and as such the applicant is liable to pay the sales tax thereon. In response to the pre-assessment notice issued by the assessing officer, the defence set out by the applicant - dealer was that it is not the responsibility of the applicant to pay the sales tax, if any. It was submitted that he has given the vehicle in question to the aforestated transport companies on hire to carry goods. Goods were carried by the aforestated transport companies in the vehicle of the applicant up to Varanasi and thereafter the said goods were transported elsewhere on some other vehicle, to other State. The said plea did not find favour by the assessing officer. However, the assessment order was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal. The matter was carried in second appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by its earlier order restored the assessment order. Thereafter, a revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was filed in this court which was allowed and the matter was restored back to the first appellate authority with certain directions for deciding the appeal afresh. The matter was carried in second appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by its earlier order restored the assessment order. Thereafter, a revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was filed in this court which was allowed and the matter was restored back to the first appellate authority with certain directions for deciding the appeal afresh. After making the necessary inquiry and collecting the material, the matter was reheard by the first appellate authority who by the order dated November 28, 1997, this time dismissed the appeal on the finding that the dealer - applicant has failed to prove its case of giving the vehicle in question on hire basis to the aforestated transport companies. The said order has been confirmed in Second Appeal No. 139 of 1998 by the order under revision. Heard the learned counsel for the parries and perused the record. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant cannot be treated as "owner" of the vehicle in question under section 28B of the Act and as such the levy of trade tax/sales tax amounting to Rs. 87,147 be deleted. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant but it is difficult to agree with it. The relevant extract from the earlier order of the High Court which has been produced in the order of the Tribunal is reproduced below : "A person claiming protection of the Explanation to section 28B is under duty to prove that the vehicles in question, though registered in his name, had been given on hire to the transport companies, mere production of the name of the company or mere setting up of such a theory does not absolve the owner in whose name the vehicle is registered from the liability under section 28B. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the Sales Tax Officer was justified in coming to the conclusion that the liability of payment of tax under section 28B remained with the applicant until the finding of the assessing authority in respect of hiring of the vehicles to the transport companies by the applicant was set aside, for cogent reasons. It was not open either to the first or second appellate authority to proceed on the assumption that the vehicles in question had actually been given by the applicant to the transport companies on hire. It was not open either to the first or second appellate authority to proceed on the assumption that the vehicles in question had actually been given by the applicant to the transport companies on hire. In my opinion, both the appellate authorities failed to exercise the power strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the orders dated July 12, 1991 and November 16, 1993 passed by the first appellate authority as well as the second appellate authority, respectively, are, therefore, set aside. The case is remanded back to the first appellate authority with the direction that it shall record a finding regarding hiring of the vehicles by the two transport companies as claimed by the applicant. While doing so, it shall meet the reasoning given by the assessing authority in that respect and if finally it comes to the conclusion that the vehicles in question had been given on hire and the applicant had no hand in the transportation of the goods, the applicant will be entitled to the benefit of the Explanation to section 28B." After the aforestated order, all the three authorities below including the Tribunal have found that the dealer - applicant has failed to prove that the vehicle in question, as a matter of fact, was given on hire basis to the alleged transport companies. The said finding is based on relevant material on record. The learned counsel for the applicant could not demonstrate before this court that the finding in this regard is in any manner arbitrary or vitiated. The authorities below have taken into consideration the relevant material and have rightly discarded the plea of hire of the vehicle in question. It is also not in dispute that the relevant forms 34 which were obtained by the applicant's vehicle from the entry check-post were not got cancelled. On the contrary, the case of the applicant is that its vehicle transported the goods up to Varanasi which is within the State of U.P. On these facts, a presumption though rebuttable in nature was rightly drawn against the applicant that it sold the goods in the State of U.P. in the absence of any material to rebut it. No evidence was produced by the applicant except a bald statement that the said vehicle was given to the concerned transport companies. No evidence was produced by the applicant except a bald statement that the said vehicle was given to the concerned transport companies. A fresh opportunity was afforded to the applicant to substantiate the plea by the High Court while passing the remand order but the applicant failed to avail it. He could not establish that he was not in any manner involved with the transportation of the goods in the State of U.P. from the outside of the State. The driver of the vehicle in question, admittedly, got form 34 issued while entering in the State of U.P. On the facts of the case, it has been rightly held that the applicant is the "owner" of the vehicle in question and is, therefore, liable to pay the sales tax dues. The revision is concluded by the findings of fact and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.