JUDGMENT Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, the learned Special Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer in the State of Rajasthan and purchased Bitumin from Mathura Refinery in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The goods were loaded in the truck and was to travel upto Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan. While the vehicle was moving in Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar on the way of Rajasthan, the vehicle was intercepted by the Mobile Squad of the Commercial Tax Department on 8th December, 2015. The goods were seized and were directed to be released upon furnishing a security of Rs. 4,60,000/-. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a representation under Section 48(7) of the U.P. VAT Act before the Joint Commissioner, which was rejected by an order dated 15th December, 2015. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal to the Tribunal, which was allowed by an order dated 12th January, 2016. The Tribunal directed that the goods should be released forthwith without demanding any security. The Tribunal gave a categorical finding that there was no information or evidence on behalf of the department to show that the goods were being unloaded in Noida and, therefore, in the absence of any evidence, the goods could not have been seized. This order of the Tribunal has become final as in pursuance thereof, the goods were released and the petitioner was allowed to take away the goods to Rajasthan. But before the vehicle could go outside Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, the said vehicle was again seized on 20th January, 2016 again on the pretext that the goods were being unloaded in the premises of M/s Maa Bhagwati Construction Company, Noida. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in again seizing the goods and the vehicle, has filed the present writ petition. 3. Sri C.B. Tripathi, the learned Special Counsel for the State was directed to received instructions. He has received instructions contending that an application may be filed before the Joint Commissioner under Section 48(7) of the U.P. VAT Act, who shall decide the matter in the shortest possible time. 4. We are not acceding to this request, inasmuch as we are of the opinion that the petitioner is unnecessarily been harassed for vested reasons. He has received instructions contending that an application may be filed before the Joint Commissioner under Section 48(7) of the U.P. VAT Act, who shall decide the matter in the shortest possible time. 4. We are not acceding to this request, inasmuch as we are of the opinion that the petitioner is unnecessarily been harassed for vested reasons. We find that there is no evidence on record to indicate that the goods were being unloaded at M/s Maa Bhagwati Construction Company at Noida. In the absence of any evidence to that effect, coupled with the fact that the Tribunal had already found that the seizure to be illegal, there was no justification on the part of the respondents in again seizing the goods and the vehicle. 5. We are of the opinion that the action of the respondents was totally malafide. 6. We, accordingly, quash the seizure of the goods and direct that the goods and the vehicle to be released forthwith on payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/-, which shall be paid by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Mobile Squad, Unit-1, Noida within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by means of a cross demand draft in favour of the petitioner. 7. We also direct the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Mobile Squad, Unit-1, Noida to ensure that the goods are released and under his supervision the vehicle along with the goods are escorted upto the border immediately. 8. Certified copy of this order shall be made available to the learned Special Counsel for the State within three days free of cost.