ORDER 1. Heard Mr. M.S. Mittal on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. P.D. Agrawal, learned G.P. II on behalf of the State. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.6.1996 as contained in annexure 2 and the order dated 19.6.1996 as contained in annexure 5, the petitioners have moved this court in the present writ application. It appears that by annexure 2 the truck bearing registration no. OR-04-5743 has been seized and by annexure. 5 a penalty of Rs. 70213/- has been imposed. 3. Mr. Mittal submits that there is no violation of any law because in view of the principles laid down in 1996 (1) PLJR 547 : 1996 (1) All PLR 259, the petitioners cannot be held to have evaded any tax. According to him law does not contemplate that the different vehicles require fresh road permit under the Bihar Finance Act. 4. The case of the petitioners is that six trucks were coming with some consignments from Tumsar road to Jamshedpur and the truck bearing registration no. OR-04-5743 developed some technical snag on the way and was stationed there. Though the driver of the truck informed the authority that one road permit was issued against all six trucks and the original road permit was with another truck and he had xeroxed copy of the said permit but even then the said truck was seized. According to the petitioners, carrying photo copies of the road permits does not amount to infringement of the requirements of Bihar Finance Act, 1981. 5. Mr. Agrawal, learned G.P. II, on the other hand, submits that the order is subject to appellate revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal and, therefore, the petitioners have efficacious alternative remedy. According to him, if the petitioner is able to satisfy the tribunal that there has been no breach of law justifying non-imposition of penalty, they may get relief. Learned G.P. II further contends that the appellate authority has power under law to release the vehicle and, as such, the High Court should not usurp the power of such authority by releasing the vehicle and the consignment. 6. Learned G.P. II further contends that the appellate authority has power under law to release the vehicle and, as such, the High Court should not usurp the power of such authority by releasing the vehicle and the consignment. 6. The power of the Sales Tax authority to seize the goods being transported without requisite documents/forms after being imported into the State and to levy tax and penalty necessarily includes the power to decide the question whether the goods, in fact, were being transported in violation of any provision of law. 7. In the present case a finding has been arrived at by the Commercial Tax Officer that the story of original road permit being carried by another truck was not believable and as such, he comes to a finding that the petitioners have violated the provisions of law. The said finding is a finding of fact which ought to have been questioned in an appeal provided by the Bihar Finance Act which was not done and the High court was directly approached by way of this writ petition. It is well settled that the finding of fact cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The High Court can interfere only when the finding is based on no evidence or is perverse i.e. a finding which no reasonable person can arrive at. 8. In the present case the Commercial Tax officer has given his reasons for imposing penalty. Under this circumstance, in our opinion, as already held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur and other vs. Union of India and others reported in 1995 (Supp) (1) SCC 410, the petitioners should approach the appellate court at the first instance ventilating their grievances. 9. However, so far the seizure of the truck and the goods loaded thereon is concerned, though the appellate authority has power to release the same but, in our opinion, there is no justification in keeping the truck seized as also the goods, namely, Silico-Manganese carried on in that truck. 10. If the petitioners file an appeal within two weeks from today, the concerned respondent shall release the truck bearing registration no. OR-04-5743 and the goods namely, Silico-Manganese, on furnishing security to the satisfaction of respondent no. 2 under rule 39 (d) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. 10. If the petitioners file an appeal within two weeks from today, the concerned respondent shall release the truck bearing registration no. OR-04-5743 and the goods namely, Silico-Manganese, on furnishing security to the satisfaction of respondent no. 2 under rule 39 (d) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. Further the penalty imposed upon the petitioners shall remain stayed on the petitioner's furnishing security under Rule 39 (d) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. 11. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction.