JUDGMENT A. K. MATHUR, C.J. - The petitioners by this writ petition have prayed that section 29-A, 29-A(13), 29-B, 29-C and rule 56-A, 56-B, 56-C, 56-D, 56-E as also form XXV-A be declared as ultra vires to the Constitution of India. The petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as also the demand notice (annexures H, H-1 & J). 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company carrying on the business of undertaking contracts for design, supply and fabrication at various places in India. It has undertaken a contract for overhead pressed steel tank for supply of industrial water to Blast Furnace No. 7 from the Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, and for this purpose, transported 187 pieces of M.S. channel weighing 30 M.T. through petitioner No. 2, who is a transporter. The ownership of the goods is with petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 has imposed a penalty purporting to be in exercise of his powers under section 29-A(8)(C) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The petitioner No. 1 had purchased the said goods from the Steel Authority of India from their New Bongaigaon Transit Yard and it was despathched by petitioner No. 1 to Bhilai Steel Plant through the transport company, i.e., petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 1 filed a declaration in form No. XXV-A under rule 56-A(3) of the Sales Tax Rules before the respondent No. 1 at London Checkpost. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 seized the goods, got it unloaded and issued a notice purporting to be in exercise of his powers under section 29-A(18) calling upon him as to why a penalty amounting to Rs. 55,260 be not imposed. Later on, respondent No. 1 also issued notice on June 5, 1985 in which it was mentioned that the penalty, which was said to be imposed, was under section 29-A(8)(c) of the act. 3. A reply was submitted to the penalty notice and the proceedings were initiated. Thereafter, a penalty was imposed by the Sales Tax Office, Sales Tax Check-Post Lodam (Raigarh), by order dated June 5, 1985 (annexure H). 4. 3. A reply was submitted to the penalty notice and the proceedings were initiated. Thereafter, a penalty was imposed by the Sales Tax Office, Sales Tax Check-Post Lodam (Raigarh), by order dated June 5, 1985 (annexure H). 4. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bilasper, and the Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax has confirmed the order of levy of penalty. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging both the aforesaid orders as also the validity of the aforesaid provisions of the Act. 5. So far as the provisions of law is concerned, the validity of similar provision of U.P. Act thereof has already been upheld by honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sodhi Transport Co. v. State of U.P [1986] 62 STC 381 under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. On the basis o the said decision, this Court has also upheld the validity of the provision of M.P. General Sales Tax Act, in the case of Bhoruka Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer (1995) 28 VKN 202. Hence for the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the arguments regarding challenge to the validity of the said provisions and the same is upheld. 6. Now coming to the question of levy of penalty, the first authority has levied the penalty and the revisional authority has affirmed the same. The learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to justify that the petitioner-company was registered in M.P., but in the declaration form in has wrongly written the sales tax number of Gauhati in place of M.P. Therefore, the taxing authority imposed levy of penalty on the ground that the company did not fill declaration form properly. Hence, the findings given by the taxing authority were affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax). This is purely a question of fact, which we are not inclined to examine in an extraordinary jurisdiction. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners. Petition dismissed.