JUDGMENT V. K. Singhal, J. - The petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Jaipur by which the goods which were carried in vehicle No. HRM-2701 were seized on September 14, 1994 on the ground that the G.P. sheets carried by this vehicle shown to have been carried from Delhi to Bombay were in fact intended to be brought to Jaipur. On the basis of the alleged wrong declaration, action under section 22(A)(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 was taken and 815 G.P. sheets weighing about 9,100 kg. were seized. A notice under section 22A(7) was given to the driver of the aforesaid vehicle for appearing before the authorities on September 30, 1994. The petitioner has submitted the reply along with affidavit and challenged the jurisdiction of the A.C.T.O., Flying Squad, Head Quarters, Kar Bhawan, Jaipur. Fresh notices were issued on September 23, 1994 on the basis of the statement of the driver that he has disclosed that the goods were brought to Jaipur and therefore the action was proposed to be taken under section 22A(7) of the Act. In the notice it was further mentioned that the enquiry was made from the consignee M/s. Rohit Enterprises, Bombay, who has given the statement that he has not placed any order to Delhi firm nor he knows him. Any relationship with the said goods was completely denied. On this basis the notice was issued under the 1st proviso to section 22A(7)(a) to levy the penalty at 30 per cent. The petitioner has submitted a certificate of Rakesh Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Delhi that they have sold the goods to M/s. Rohit Enterprises, Bombay on the basis of the telephonic order dated September 10, 1994. Since the goods were to be delivered within a period of 7 days and could not reach Bombay within the stipulated time, the order was cancelled on telephone on September 20, 1994. Necessary instructions were also given to the transport company to bring the goods back. The submission of both the learned counsel have been heard. Mr. Jain has submitted that in respect of an inter-State movement of goods from outside the State of Rajasthan to other States outside Rajasthan the State of Rajasthan has no jurisdiction. Necessary instructions were also given to the transport company to bring the goods back. The submission of both the learned counsel have been heard. Mr. Jain has submitted that in respect of an inter-State movement of goods from outside the State of Rajasthan to other States outside Rajasthan the State of Rajasthan has no jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Hansraj Bagrecha v. State of Bihar [1971] 27 STC 4, E.I.T.A. (India) Ltd. v. D. Dutta [1986] 63 STC 416 (Cal), Miss Alka Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan [1987] 66 STC 204 (Raj) and Prakash Roadlines (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka [1991] 83 STC 49 (Kar). In Hansraj Bagrecha v. State of Bihar [1971] 27 STC 4 it has been held by the apex Court that the power of the State Legislature is restricted to legislate in respect of intra-State transactions of sale and purchase and to matters ancillary or incidental thereto; it has no power to legislate for levy of tax on sales and purchases in the course of inter-State transaction. In E.I.T.A. (India) Ltd. v. D. Dutta [1986] 63 STC 416 the Calcutta High Court has held that in the absence of provisions in the rules requiring of obtaining the permit the goods cannot be seized from the transporter. In this case also the reference has been made to the fact that the genuineness of the document is not in question. In Prakash Roadlines (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka [1991] 83 STC 49 the Karnataka High Court had held that failure to produce the documents on demand, itself is not sufficient to levy the penalty. From the perusal of the above decisions it is evident that, so far as the power of the State Legislature or the authorities acting under the provisions of enactment of the State Legislature will have the jurisdiction in respect of the goods in which a tax liability could be attracted under the provisions of local laws. On the basis of the above decisions, it is submitted that the Anti Evasion Wing of the Commercial Taxes Department has no jurisdiction to stop the vehicle which is in transit from one State to another. On the basis of the above decisions, it is submitted that the Anti Evasion Wing of the Commercial Taxes Department has no jurisdiction to stop the vehicle which is in transit from one State to another. It is further submitted that simply on the basis of the statement of the driver no penal action under section 22A(7) can be taken. It is again submitted that if any document is to be relied upon for using against the petitioner, it was the duty of the respondent to have provided the copy thereof, so that they could have submitted their explanation or rebutted the same on the basis of the facts available with them. The decision in the case of Chawla Highway Carrier v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4019 of 1994) decided on August 25, 1994 has also been relied upon which is based on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court wherein necessary directions were given to the check-post authorities, that if the goods have been shown to have been consigned outside the State of Rajasthan then the proper course would be to put the seal on the packets and check at the exit check-post. If the seals were found intact they will not hinder free movement of the goods outside the State. So far as this argument is concerned, if the goods are being carried from one State to another then the State of Rajasthan - authorities have no jurisdiction to check it. But in the garb of the document where the goods were shown to have been consigned outside the State of Rajasthan, there may be cases of evasion of tax by preparing the false documents. It may be on the basis of definite information or some evidence which may come into the possession of the commercial taxes authorities on the basis of which there may be prima facie of opinion that the goods are to be delivered within the State of Rajasthan. In such a situation a further probe is necessary and after coming to the prima facie conclusion that the goods are likely to be delivered within the State of Rajasthan and documents have been prepared falsely with the intention to evade tax, the respondents have the jurisdiction to investigate the matter and provide further opportunity not only to the driver or the carrier but also to the consignor and consignee. A driver is not supposed to know much about the ownership of goods and his job is to drive the vehicle from the place the owner of the vehicle has directed to the place for which the instructions are given. The owner of the vehicle is supposed to have the knowledge of the person who has consigned the goods. In a case where it is prima facie found, may be on the basis of the statement of the driver, that the documents are forged one, opportunity first has to be given to the owner of the vehicle to produce the owner of the goods or the concerned correct documents. If the owner of the vehicle fails to produce the correct documents or the owner of the goods, then the action could be taken on the owner of the vehicle. If the owner of the vehicle produces the owner of the goods or gives his address then it is expected that the said owner shall be called before taking any action in the matter. It is also clear that any document which has come in possession of the respondent and the taxing authorities have relied the same proceedings have to be completed by producing copy to the person affected against whom it is used. If any statement have been recorded of any person including the driver of the vehicle and are intended to be used against the petitioner they have the right to cross-examine the driver so that truth may come on record and they may not allege that any principle of natural justice have been violated. The action has to be taken promptly but in any case where the inquiry is likely to take number of days the vehicle cannot be detained without the proper order of the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) for seizing the vehicle. The Deputy Commissioner (Administration) can direct detention of the vehicle when it is found that the owner of the vehicle is also involved in the evasion of tax by producing false documents. In any case where the owner of the vehicle has bona fide taken the goods from one place to another, the vehicle normally cannot be detained unless something is found against the owner of the vehicle. In any case where the owner of the vehicle has bona fide taken the goods from one place to another, the vehicle normally cannot be detained unless something is found against the owner of the vehicle. It is the duty of the truck driver and the owner of the vehicle that they must have the documents as has been prescribed under section 22A(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and under rule 63(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1954. The detention of the vehicle cannot be ordered to exact the penalty or to put pressure either on the driver or the owner of the vehicle to realise the penalty, simply because the respondent have the power to detain the goods vehicle. If the vehicle is detained without any proper reason, the respondent may be personally responsible for the loss which has occurred to the owner of the vehicle because of the detention of the vehicle. The genuineness of the documents required to be proved, could not be proved by the driver. It is also true that if the goods are being carried from one State to another and Rajasthan happens to be in between, the provisions of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act are not applicable for such a genuine transaction. The decisions which have been relied could be interpreted to mean that in respect of those transaction where the goods are genuinely being carried from one State to another no one would be harassed. There may be apprehension at the stage of check-post itself, of evasion of the tax that the goods shall not be carried outside the State of Rajasthan and would be delivered or disposed of within the State of Rajasthan. In such a situation direction of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 17231 of 1993 dated October 22, 1993 can be followed. Similarly any officer of the anti-evasion department who has been authorised to exercise the power as an officer-in-charge of the check-post or as flying-squad officer, they may at the initial stage can also provide the similar treatment as has been given by way of interim relief by the apex Court or by way of the directions which have been given by this Court in the case of Chawla Highway Carriers (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4019 of 1994 decided on August 25, 1994). But if there is any prima facie evidence, information or basis for the authorities that goods are not meant to be taken out of Rajasthan, they have the power to make investigation and seizure of goods. So far as the facts of the present case is concerned, an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Commissioner from the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Enforcement Division) and the report in respect thereof was received and it has been reported that the statement of Rohit Enterprises, Bombay were recorded and they have denied to have purchased or placed any order for purchasing of goods from Delhi - dealer M/s. Rakesh Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Besides this report the statement of Rakesh Khandelwal have also been enclosed in which he has denied to have any contract with M/s. Rakesh Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. The copy of the statement has also been enclosed along with the report. In the interest of justice it is directed that the documents which have been collected by the respondent may be provided to the petitioner who may submit his explanation in respect thereof. The Rajasthan Sales Tax Act provides an efficacious alternative remedy. The question as to whether any order was placed by the Bombay - firm on Delhi - firm is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated under article 226. The respondent shall provide the opportunity to the petitioner with reference to the documents on which the reliance is sought to be placed and the petitioner would have the full opportunity of submitting the evidence which they want to rely upon. The order under section 22A(7) has not yet been passed. The order has to be passed after taking into consideration the explanation of the petitioner as well and thereafter the petitioner has the efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal under section 13 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. In these circumstances, I do not consider that present one is a fit case for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.