JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - An action under section 29A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 with regard to the interception on August 1, 1988 by the Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Officer, Munnar, resulting into the order of penalty (annexure D), an appeal therefrom to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of Sales Tax, Ernakulam, receiving endorsement and a further futile attempt before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam has come before us within the limited powers under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The above narration itself should speculate the course to follow in the situation. 2. In the proceedings before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (the trial authority), we find the factual matrix that Lorry No. KCF 4662, on checking, was found transporting 125 kgs. of jaggery from Marayoor to Cherpungal. Cherpungal is the principal place of business of the petitioner-assessee, M/s. St. Sleeba Stores. This transport was without any documents in regard to the goods being transported and therefore became a ground for the inspecting officer to form reason to suspect in the matter of evading payment of tax due in regard thereto. 3. A security deposit of Rs. 9,500 under section 29A(2) of the Act was a fulfilled condition for the goods permitted to be transported. 4. At the outset the notice under the above statutory provisions recorded that the goods were transported without any record in regard thereto. 5. The enquiry officer examined the situation and by his order considered the factual position. The officer considered the material produced during the hearing. He considered bill No. 1028 dated July 30, 1988 issued by the Kanthalloor G. K. Industrial Co-operative Society and it was rejected by the officer because he found overwriting by making the situation suspicious. On seeing the record, considering the statement of the owners, the officer found material sufficient enough to have reason to believe to proceed further in the matter. The officer recorded a finding that the goods were being transported without any record in regard thereto, as provided and required under section 29A of the Act at the time of the check-up of the vehicle. This factual conclusion is recorded, as stated in the order, after considering the material produced before him in order to substantiate the argument. The officer recorded a finding that the goods were being transported without any record in regard thereto, as provided and required under section 29A of the Act at the time of the check-up of the vehicle. This factual conclusion is recorded, as stated in the order, after considering the material produced before him in order to substantiate the argument. Ultimately, the amount of security was converted as an amount of penalty by the order dated March 8, 1989. 6. Further travel of the proceedings before the first appellate authority required consideration of one mere factual aspect in addition. Reliance was placed on the certificate dated August 5, 1988 of the Sub-inspector of Police, Munnar who was assisting the process of interception at the hands of the sales tax authorities. The contents of the certificate which are reproduced in the order of the first appellate authority are as hereunder : "Certified that the driver of the Lorry KCE 4662 has produced one paper with all other papers except tax and registration books of KCE 4662 lorry at the time of checking by me with Sales Tax Officer at 5.30 a.m. on August 1, 1988." We agree with the observations of the first appellate authority in regard thereto that the said documents speak for nothing of relevance in the context of the situation. It is also observed that normally the delivery notes are not produced before the police officers who check the vehicles because they are concerned with the papers relating to the vehicles only especially when the police officer was jointly checking with the Sales Tax Officer. 7. The first appellate authority also considered the question of valuation and has passed appropriate orders fixing the value of the jaggery at Rs. 450 per quintal. 8. Naturally, when the factual matrix get concluded as observed above, the Appellate Tribunal was the forum to contend that the appellant before it had produced the delivery note before the officer at the time of vehicle check. The Tribunal has considered this aspect in paragraph 4 of the order. Apart therefrom it is to be noticed that under section 29A the notice issued (annexure C) specifically record that the delivery was not accompanied by any record whatsoever. Even on probabilities this situation cannot be disturbed because it is only because of that there was reason to suspect. 9. Apart therefrom it is to be noticed that under section 29A the notice issued (annexure C) specifically record that the delivery was not accompanied by any record whatsoever. Even on probabilities this situation cannot be disturbed because it is only because of that there was reason to suspect. 9. Yet another aspect has been considered by the Tribunal in paragraph 5 of the order and that is regarding the valuation fixed by the first appellate authority at Rs. 450 per quintal with reference to a submission to re-compute the amount of penalty. The Tribunal has rejected the aspect by observing that no evidence has been produced to show that the price fixed by the first appellate authority is excessive, the situation requiring no interference in regard thereto. 10. After carefully considering the travel of the proceedings, in our judgment, within the limits of our statutory powers under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, it is not possible to consider the position otherwise even with regard thereto apart from the statutory limits. For the above reasons the T.R.C. stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.