Rajes Kumar and Bharati Sapru, J.:- By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.3.2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Trade Tax, Aligarh under Rule 6 (5) and 6 (7) of the Rules by which he has appointed the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax, Aligarh as the assessing authority of the petitioner. 2. It appears that by the order dated 17.1.2000, the Additional Commissioner has appointed the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) as the assessing authority of the petitioner. The said order has been challenged in the writ petition no.629 of 2000. The contention of the petitioner was that it was the transporter and was not the dealer and therefore the order under Rule 6 (5) and 6 (7) of the Rules should not be passed. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 1.8.2000 directing the petitioner to submit the objection before the respondent and the respondent has been directed to decide the said objection. 3. It appears that the petitioner has filed objection. The said objection has been decided by the order dated 30.9.2000 and a fresh order has been passed under Rule 6 (5) and 6 (7) of the Rules. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed writ petition no. 1068 of 2000 challenging the said order. The writ petition was entertained and on 30.9.2000 this court has stayed the operation of the order. However it was made open to the Additional Commissioner to pass a fresh order. In pursuance of the said order, the impugned order dated 30.3.2001 has been passed. 4. Heard Sri N.R. Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Pandey learned standing counsel. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a transporter and is engaged in the activities of transporting the goods of various parties from one place to another place and was not carrying on of his own business of buying and selling and therefore does not fall within the purview of a dealer as defined under section 2 (c ) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 6. 6. He also submitted that at the time of survey dated 9.9.1999 and 10.9.1999 as referred in the impugned order, no such material has been found to establish that the petitioner was carrying on any business of buying and selling of goods and was a dealer and therefore the order passed under Rule 6 (5) and 6 (7) of the Rules, the appointing the Assisstant Commissioner (Assessment) Trade Tax, Aligarh as the assessing authority to make the assessment is wholly illegal. 7. He further submitted that merely because the security in respect of some of the transactions had been deposited by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be said to be a dealer. He again submitted that merely because the petitioner was not able to disclose the name and address of the consignor and consignee, the petitioner cannot be treated as the dealer. 8. Learned standing counsel submitted that at the time of survey dated 9.9.1999 and 10.9.1999 made at the premises of the petitioner, various incriminating documents were found. He further submitted that goods were also found and in support of which, no document was available. 9. According to the learned standing counsel, despite opportunity being given to the petitioner, the details of the consignor and consignee has not been disclosed. Therefore there was sufficient material on record to presume that the petitioner was transporting the goods on own account and was engaged in the business of buying and selling and therefore the impugned order passed by the Addl. Commissioner is wholly justified. 10. He further submitted that section 8A (5) contemplates that if a transporter or the driver or the person-in-charge of the vehicle fails to produce transport memo, it shall be presumed that the owner or the person-in-charge of the vehicle, as the case may be, is transporting such goods in his own account and such dealer, transporter or the person-in-charge of the vehicle, as the case may be, assessed to tax as well as the penalty, if any, in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 11. We have considered the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and various other documents. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a transporter and is carrying on the business of the transporting the goods of the various parties from one place to another. 11. We have considered the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and various other documents. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a transporter and is carrying on the business of the transporting the goods of the various parties from one place to another. There is no bar for the transporter to carry on business of the buying and selling on his account. Whether the petitioner was wholly and exclusively engaged in transportation of the goods of the other parties for transportation charges only and is not involved in carrying on the business of buying and selling on his own account, is the matter of adjudication? 12. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that surveys were made at the premises of the petitioner on 9.9.1999 and 10.9.1999. At the time of surveys at the godown of the petitioner, the goods were found and no document relating to such goods were made available. The petitioner was not able to disclose the name of the consignor and consignee. It was also found that in respect of some of the consignments, the petitioner has deposited security on his account. Therefore we are of the view that there was sufficient material to infer that apart from transportation business, the petitioner was also involved in carrying on business of buying and selling on own account. 13. So far as the exercise of the power under Rule 6 (5) and Rule 6 (7) is concerned, we are of the view that the said power can be exercised on a consideration of the prima facie material that the person is a dealer. Whether a person was only a transporter or he was carrying on business of buying and selling of goods also and is a dealer, is the matter of final adjudication which can be adjudicated by the assessing authority in the assessment proceedings. In the assessment proceedings, it will be open to the petitioner to adduce the evidence in support of its claim. Therefore we are of the view that the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner under Rule 6 (5) and 6 (7) is a legal order and does not require interference. 14. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.