JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya :- Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Piyush Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri Nimai Das, learned standing counsel appearing for the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, U.P., Lucknow, the respondent. The learned counsel for both the sides are agreeable that both the aforesaid revisions be heard together and disposed of at this stage finally. These two revisions have been filed against the common order of the Tribunal dated February 8, 2011 affirming the order of the lower authorities whereby upon seizure of certain goods a demand of VAT and also deposit of security under the Entry Tax Act was made, therefore, both these revisions are being considered and decided together by this common order. Applicant No. 1 is a registered company having its registered office at O.P. Jindal Marg, Hissar, Haryana and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of stainless steel sheets, plates and coil, etc. Applicant No. 2 is a registered partnership firm and is engaged in transporting goods. The present revisions arise out of seizure proceeding initiated under section 48(7) of the U.P. VAT Act in the assessment year 2010-11. Facts in brief are that applicant No. 1 has engaged applicant No. 2 for transporting certain goods which are said to be in the nature of stainless steel plates and coil in the vehicle of applicant No. 2 having registration No. HR 39-A/2177. The said vehicle was detained by the Mobile Squad, Noida on January 27, 2011 and a show-cause notice was issued to appear on January 31, 2011. The applicants submitted their reply which was not accepted by the authorities and the seizure order dated February 1, 2011 for VAT was passed. Aggrieved by the said order of seizure under section 48(7) of the Act an application was filed before the Joint Commissioner, SIB, Commercial Tax, Gautam Buddh Nagar and the said authority vide its order dated February 3, 2011 affirmed the order of seizure. Further aggrieved, the applicants preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which was rejected and the orders of the authorities below were affirmed. Further aggrieved, the applicants preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which was rejected and the orders of the authorities below were affirmed. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that certain consignment of goods was to be transported on the vehicle in question which was loaded in Haryana and was meant to be transported to Badve Engineering Ltd., Rudrapur, Uttarakhand and the said consignment was accompanied with invoice-cum-challan dated January 25, 2011 and dispatch programme-cum-loading slip were also accompanying with the goods. It is further submitted that the Challan Invoice Outward form D-3 as prescribed under the Haryana Act and form 16 as prescribed under the Uttarakhand Act were also issued by the purchaser and were accompanying the goods. The said goods were neither unloaded within the territory of Uttar Pradesh nor it was meant for sale within the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is submitted that the consignor and the consignee, the nature and quantity of goods were all verifiable from the documents accompanying the goods and a bare perusal of those documents would have firmly established that the goods were being only transported through the State of Uttar Pradesh and was brought from outside and was meant for outward destination to Uttarakhand and, therefore, no penalty or the tax on said transit of goods could have been levied and, therefore, the seizure is illegal and imposition of entry tax at the rate of 40 per cent is also illegal as the Entry Tax Act itself is under challenge before this court. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the goods were intercepted by the mobile squad and it was found that the driver of the vehicle did not possess the duly filled down loaded transit/declaration form as required under the circular of the Commissioner dated July 30, 2009. It is stated that the check-post within the State of Uttar Pradesh has now been abolished and, therefore, the transit declaration form after being duly filled in has to be down loaded from the official website of the Department and this declaration form has to remain with the consignment throughout the time the goods in question are within the State of Uttar Pradesh, and since the aforesaid down loaded declaration form was not produced, therefore, the seizure and the subsequent demand of security is justified. Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal then submitted that there is no such requirement under section 50 of the VAT Act, which is the provision for the goods in transit through the State and the only requirement is that the person in-charge of the vehicle shall carry such documents as may be prescribed, failing which presumption would be drawn that the goods are meant for sale within the State. Sri Agrawal further submitted that this provision is akin to the provision as provided under section 28B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, and such a presumption is a rebuttable presumption and if from the documents accompanying the goods it is verifiable that the goods were, in fact, in transit from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh and bound for a destination outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, the seizure of such goods only on the fact that downloaded transit form was not produced is arbitrary exercise of power. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, has relied upon a decision of this court rendered in the case of J. P. Drugs v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow reported in [2010] 12 VLJ 77, wherein this court relying upon another decision in the case of DRS Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow, reported in [2009] 10 ADJ 318, has held that other documents accompanying the goods are relevant documents to determine the fact that the goods were actually in transit from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh to another destination outside the State of Uttar Pradesh and if that can he established, then it has proceeded to direct the authorities to charge security for release of such goods only at the rate of tax that is leviable on the goods so seized. It has further held that upon release of goods on furnishing such security, the tax authorities will be at liberty to adopt such measures to satisfy itself that the goods have actually been transported outside the State of Uttar Pradesh and are not unloaded or sold within the State of Uttar Pradesh. It has further held that upon release of goods on furnishing such security, the tax authorities will be at liberty to adopt such measures to satisfy itself that the goods have actually been transported outside the State of Uttar Pradesh and are not unloaded or sold within the State of Uttar Pradesh. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the goods are allowed to be released on furnishing security equal to the amount of tax that is leviable on the goods seized and for the remaining amount upon furnishing security other than cash or bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the authority. It is further directed that so far as entry tax is concerned, the petitioner shall furnish security other than cash or bank guarantee to the extent of 20 per cent instead of 40 per cent as demanded by the authority. On such prayer being made it is provided that it will be open for the applicants to furnish bank guarantee in case it is not able to arrange for the security other than bank guarantee as directed above. With the above observation/direction, both the revisions stand disposed of.