JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna J. - Heard the counsel for the parties. Shri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, agreed that instead of hearing the revision for admission, the revision may be heard and decided finally. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the revision is being decided finally. The applicant, a private limited company registered under the Companies Act established a unit at D-9, Panki, Site - 1, Kanpur for the purposes of manufacture and sale of auto parts. For some reason, the applicant decided to close down the said unit with effect from March 31, 2007. The information of the closure of the unit was given to the Trade Tax Department. Due to the closure of the unit, the applicant decided to shift the office goods from the State of U.P. to State of Uttaranchal, to its sister concern. For this purpose, the office equipment such as chairs, tables, almirahas, gas cylinder, electric fittings, etc., were being transported from State of U.P. to the sister concern known as Unimotive Auto Parts situate at Plot Nos. 20, 21 and 22, Siduel Site, Sitarganj (State of Uttaranchal). The goods were accompanied with challan No. 137, dated October 17, 2007 where it was mentioned that the goods are "not for sale" specifically. The Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, Trade Tax, Kanpur, intercepted the consignment on October 18, 2007 on the ground that in the challan the registration number was not mentioned. A show-cause notice was issued to the applicant to which a detailed reply was furnished stating that the goods are not meant for sale, old unusable office equipment goods were being transported to its sister concern at Uttaranchal. The said reply was not found satisfactory by the officer concerned and thereafter an order demanding security to the extent of Rs. 92,800 being 40 per cent of the estimated value of the goods was demanded by the order dated October 19, 2007. Being aggrieved by the said order, an application, as provided for under section 13A(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, was filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement). The said application was dismissed by the authority concerned by the order dated November 23, 2007, which was challenged before the Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 109 of 2008 unsuccessfully. The Tribunal by the order under revision has dismissed the appeal. The said application was dismissed by the authority concerned by the order dated November 23, 2007, which was challenged before the Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 109 of 2008 unsuccessfully. The Tribunal by the order under revision has dismissed the appeal. Shri Kunwar Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the seizure order as well as the order demanding the security are wholly arbitrary and illegal. He submits that under section 13A(4) of the Act, goods can be seized only under the following two circumstances : (1) When the goods are not traceable to a bona fide dealer, or (2) When the goods are not properly accounted for in the account books. Elaborating the argument he submits that on a plain reading of section 13A(4), the seizure is unjustified, for the reason that it does not talk about a "registered dealer". The Tribunal wrongly interpreted section 13A(4) and read the word "registered" before the word dealer in the said Act, submits the learned counsel for the applicant. The learned standing counsel on the other hand supports the impugned order. Considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The details of the items which were being transported have been given in annexure 1 to the memo of revision. A bare perusal of annexure 1 would show that items such as chairs, tables, almirahas, gas cylinder, electric fittings, etc., were being transported. The very description of these documents is indicative of the fact that the said goods were being transported by the applicant from U.P. to Uttaranchal due to closure of business in U.P. and were not meant for sale. Old and used items such as table, chairs, etc., the items that were being transported on the fact situation as it existed in the present case do themselves show, prima facie, at least, that they were not meant for sale. Besides the above, it was also mentioned in the challan that these goods were not for sale. True that mentioning of words "not for sale" itself is not sufficient, but taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, the irresistible conclusion is that goods were not meant for sale but were being transported due to shifting of the office. Besides the above, it was also mentioned in the challan that these goods were not for sale. True that mentioning of words "not for sale" itself is not sufficient, but taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, the irresistible conclusion is that goods were not meant for sale but were being transported due to shifting of the office. It may be noted here that the applicant was a registered dealer within the State of U.P., and it closed down the business with effect from March 31, 2007. Naturally the capital items were required to be shifted somewhere else and were being shifted to its sister concern. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case, there appears force in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the goods were not meant for sale. A bare perusal of the order of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal itself has observed that whether a sale has taken place or whether there will be any liability to pay the tax or penalty will be considered at the appropriate stage. This observation is indicative of the fact that the Tribunal while deciding the appeal was not confident that by transferring the goods in question the sale is being suppressed by the applicant. This being so, there was no justification for seizing the goods. Power of seizure has been given to check tax evasion and unless the authority concerned comes to such conclusion, no seizure can be made. There is also sufficient force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that under section 13A(4), only word "dealer" has been used and not "registered dealer". The word "dealer" has been defined in section 2(c) of the Act. The definition of "dealer" provides that it means any person who carries on in U.P. (whether regularly or otherwise) the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods directly or indirectly, for cash or deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration. Till there is any material to show that such a person who is found transporting the goods is a dealer, i.e., is carrying on any business, power of seizure under section 13A(4) could not be exercised by the authority. The view, thus, taken by the Tribunal that the applicant is not a registered dealer, therefore, it could not transport the goods is legally untenable. The view, thus, taken by the Tribunal that the applicant is not a registered dealer, therefore, it could not transport the goods is legally untenable. There being no evidence to show that the applicant carries on in U.P. any business of buying or selling, etc. Section 13A(4) is not attracted. None of the authorities below have found anything in this regard. There being no iota of evidence of any business in U.P., the seizure order is totally arbitrary and unjustified. The Tribunal was influenced from the fact that the goods also accompanied form 16 issued by the Uttaranchal Trade Tax Department. The said form is used when a person brings good from outside for sale, i.e., State of Uttaranchal to inside the State for sale. An inference that it creates a reasonable doubt that the goods were meant for sale was drawn. Under section 13A(4) goods cannot be seized on the ground of suspicion howsoever it strong may be. The Tribunal itself has found that the goods are traceable to bona fide dealer but are not duly account for by the dealer in the account books. Whether the applicant is dealer or not is required to be find out first. There being no such finding, the order of seizure cannot be sustained. Viewed as above, I find sufficient force in the revision. There was absolutely no justification for the Department to seize the goods in question. The seizure order is therefore, illegal and contrary to law. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The seizure order dated October 19, 2007 and the orders dated November 23, 2007, confirmed by the Tribunal by the order dated May 1, 2008 are hereby set aside. The authorities concerned are directed to release the goods forthwith without any delay. The applicant is entitled to get Rs. 5,000 as cost from the Department.