Seizure power under trade tax law is limited to unaccounted goods, not disputes about transaction characterisation.

Goods could not be seized under section 13-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act merely because the department disputed the nature of the transaction. The seizure power was limited to cases where the officer was satisfied that the goods were not accounted for in the dealer's books, registers, or other business documents. Here, there was no finding that the consignment was unaccounted for, and the dispute instead concerned whether the sale was inter-State and whether the goods were purchased on behalf of a principal. Those issues were to be examined in assessment proceedings, so the demand for security and seizure of the goods were not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods could be seized and security demanded under the U.P. Trade Tax Act when the consignment was accompanied by documents and the dispute related to the nature of the transaction and matters to be examined in assessment.

Analysis: The statutory power of seizure under section 13-A was confined to situations where the officer was satisfied that the goods were not accounted for in the dealer's accounts, registers, or other business documents. On the facts, there was no finding that the goods were unaccounted for. The department's objection concerned whether the transaction was an inter-State sale and whether the goods were purchased on behalf of a principal, which were matters outside the limited scope of section 13-A and had to be examined in assessment proceedings. The direction for release of the goods was therefore justified.

Conclusion: The seizure and security demand were not sustainable, and the direction to release the goods was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods cannot be seized under section 13-A merely because the department disputes the nature of the transaction; seizure is justified only when there is a finding that the goods are not accounted for in the prescribed books or documents.

---