JUDGMENT B. Amit Sthalekar, J. 1. This revision arises out of an order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 26.07.2014. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the revisionist, who is a transporter of goods and is based in Delhi, books the consignment of 236 items of goods destination for different places of Bihar. The goods were passed through the State of U.P. on 26.06.2014, a mobile squad, Lucknow intercepted the vehicle carrying the goods and from the statement of the driver, which was taken and marking on the goods which showed them to be unloaded at Lucknow, a conclusion was drawn that the goods were meant within the State of U.P. and not for transportation to Bihar. The entire goods were also valued at Rs. 6,43,640/-. A show cause notice was issued to the consignees as well as the revisionist to which a reply was also filed but by an order dated 06.07.2014 passed under Section 50 of the U.P. Vat Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2008) read with Section 13 of the Entry Tax Act an order of seizure of the consignment was passed. The consignment at this stage was valued at Rs. 35,18,940/- on which a security of Rs. 16,36,063/- was demanded in cash. 3. Aggrieved the revisionist filed an application for release of consignment which was rejected by order dated 21.07.2014. An appeal was preferred before the Commercial Tax Tribunal which was also been rejected by the order dated 26.07.2014. The Tribunal has, however, reduced the valuation of the consignment to Rs. 20 lacs and modified the deposit of security for release of goods to 20% of the value of Rs. 20 lacs with a further direction that the same be deposited in cash. 4. I have heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sanjeev Shankhdhar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that a transportation memo was filed before the Joint Commissioner, which showed that out of a total consignment of 236 packages, 208 packages meant for M/S. Sharda Electric and M/S. S.K. Enterprises situate in Bihar were acknowledged by them. The other goods were also meant for final destination in Bihar but were not acknowledged by the consignees. The other goods were also meant for final destination in Bihar but were not acknowledged by the consignees. The submission, therefore, is that if at all seizure was required it could be confined to 28 packages and not the entire consignment. 6. The second submission is that the valuation of the consignment admittedly was declared at the time of seizure to be Rs. 6,43.460/- and the same was wrongly enhanced first to Rs. 35,18,940/- by the Assessing Authority which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 20 lacs by the Tribunal. The submission is that in terms of the provisions of Section 48 sub-section 1 (iii), the value of the goods have to be estimated and calculated on the basis of the market value of the goods in the local market area where the transaction had taken place. The submission, therefore, is that on the admitted facts that the transaction for supply of goods was entered into at Delhi which was also the findings confirmed by the Tribunal. However, for purposes of security the valuation of the goods was calculated at Rs. 35,18,940/- on the basis of the prevalent market value in the order dated 06.07.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Lucknow which does not show that this valuation is based upon the market value of the goods as existing in Delhi where the transaction had taken place. 7. The third leg of the argument of Sri Rahul Agarwal is that at the time of seizure the declared value of the goods was to Rs. 6,43,460/-, therefore, in any case if at all seizure was to be made the deposit of security should have been calculated on this value and not on the basis of the market value of the goods at some place other than Delhi or on the basis of best judgment assessment. 8. Rebutting the submissions of Sri Rahul Agarwal, Sri Sanjeev Shankhdhar, on the other hand, submitted that when the goods were ceased the driver had given a statement that the consignment was meant for delivery at Lucknow and that except for M/S. Sharda Electric and M/S. S.K. Enterprises the other consignees had declined to acknowledge the goods. 8. Rebutting the submissions of Sri Rahul Agarwal, Sri Sanjeev Shankhdhar, on the other hand, submitted that when the goods were ceased the driver had given a statement that the consignment was meant for delivery at Lucknow and that except for M/S. Sharda Electric and M/S. S.K. Enterprises the other consignees had declined to acknowledge the goods. Besides the markings on the packaging boxes also showed that the consignment was meant for delivery at Lucknow which showed that the consignment was meant for sale within U.P. and therefore there was no illegality or infirmity in the order of seizure and in the order of Tribunal. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Section 48 sub-section 1 (iii) of the Act, 2008 clearly provides that where any goods are confined in any place of business, vehicle, vessel or any other building or place, and such goods are accompanied by any tax invoice or sale invoice containing value of goods undervalued to the extent more than 50% of the value of goods prevalent at the relevant time in local market area where the transaction had taken place the goods are liable to seizure. Section 48 sub-section 1 (iii) of the Act, 2008 reads as follows: 48. Power to seize goods.-(1) An officer authorised under sub-section (1) of Section 45 shall have the powers to seize any goods- (i) which are found in a dealer's place of business, vehicle, vessel or any other building or place; or (ii) which, such officer has reason to believe to belong to the dealer any which are found in any place of business, vehicle, vessel or any other building or place, but are not accounted for by the dealer in his accounts, registers or other documents maintained in the ordinary course of his business; (iii) which are found in any place of business, vehicle, vessel or any other building or place, and such goods are accompanied by any tax invoice or sale invoice or any other document pertaining to value of goods, as the case may be, containing value of goods undervalued to the extent more than fifty percent of the value of goods prevalent at the relevant time in local market area where the transaction had taken place, with intention to evade payment of tax. Provided that a list of all the goods seized under this sub-section shall be prepared by such officer and be signed by the officer and not less than two witnesses. 11. From a perusal of the impugned order it would be noticed that all the requirements of conveyance of the goods from Delhi to Bihar through the State of U.P. had been complied with by the revisionist. Findings to that effect which are findings of fact have been recorded in the seizure memo and also in the order of Tribunal. The valuation of the goods declared has also been held to be Rs. 6,43,460/-. Yet the seizure order has been passed relying upon the statement of the driver of the vehicle that the goods were meant for delivery at Lucknow and further that the consignees of some of the goods had declined to acknowledge the goods. Out of 236 packages, how many packages were such, which the consignees had declined to acknowledge has not been recorded by the Tribunal. 12. The revisionist on his part had filed a memo showing that there were 236 packages and M/S. Sharda Electric and M/S. S.K. Enterprises had acknowledged the goods and their total consignment came to 208 packages, therefore, at the most the seizure could have been confined to the remaining 28 packages and the security deposit could have been calculated on the value of this consignment of 28 packages. Admittedly this was not done. 13. So far as the determination of the value of the goods is concerned, the declaration of the value of the goods was Rs. 6,46,460/- but the Assistant Commissioner (Incharge) Commercial Tax, Lucknow in his order dated 06.07.2014 has determined the value of the entire consignment at Rs. 35,18,940/- and on that amount a demand for deposit of security has been made for Rs. 16,36,063/-. This also is not based upon the valuation of the goods as per its market value in the local market area where the transaction took place, namely, Delhi. The Tribunal has no doubt reduced this amount to Rs. 20 lacs but its estimation is based upon a best judgment assessment and is not with reference to the valuation of the goods in the local market area where the transaction took place, i.e., Delhi. This is clearly contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 48 sub-section 1 (iii) of the Act, 2008. 14. 20 lacs but its estimation is based upon a best judgment assessment and is not with reference to the valuation of the goods in the local market area where the transaction took place, i.e., Delhi. This is clearly contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 48 sub-section 1 (iii) of the Act, 2008. 14. The learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Vs. M/S. Sahastra Enterprises, 2001 NTN (47) 119, wherein this Court interpreting the provisions of Section 48 sub-section 1 (iii) of the Act, 2008 and has held that the goods have to be valued with reference of the local market area where the transactions took place. I am in agreement with the said judgment. 15. For reasons stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order of Tribunal dated 26.07.2014 is absolutely illegal and arbitrary order and is accordingly quashed. 16. The revision is allowed. 17. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made above preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.