ORDER The petition has been filed by one M/s Bokaro Carrying Corporation, Gaya. It is contended that it is being filed through a staff. On enquiry by the Court, regard being had to the tenor of the arguments it could not be identified as who could be the persons, who have incorporated M/s Bokaro Carrying Corporation, whether it is proprietorship concern, partnership, an association of persons or a company. It is not denied that the vehicle was carrying motley of goods as diverse as a general merchants shop. The contention is that the petitioner was not obliged to carry any permit as the quantity is such that it is outside the permissible limit of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. It has been submitted that the Commercial Taxes Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 19 July 2000 as no merchandise, which was being transported comes within the purview of the Act aforesaid. It is further submitted that after the Commissioner, in revision proceeding, had directed the Commercial Taxes Officer to release the vehicle, it ought to have been released. The Court is taking up the last submission first. The release was upon a satisfaction that the security offered is good security. The satisfaction has to be of the Commercial Taxes Officer. Now on the merits of the issues, the contention is that the Commercial Taxes Officer has no jurisdiction. Of a petitioner, who will not disclose his identity and the details of the firm as constituted even to the High Court, it cannot be certified that anything was beyond the jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer in examining the origin of the goods and their ultimate delivery to the person to whom was meant. Of a petitioner, who will not disclose his identity and the details of the firm as constituted even to the High Court, it cannot be certified that anything was beyond the jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer in examining the origin of the goods and their ultimate delivery to the person to whom was meant. In the diverse nature of the goods, the Commercial Taxes Officer could even go to the extent to find out whether those, who had manufactured the goods, had, in fact, been licensed if the manufactured goods enter this State and those to whom the goods were to be supplied have been registered as traders and whether the goods, the nature of which is mentioned in the assessment order, was an one time transaction only or has been series of transactions so as to give good reason to believe that there was a commercial venture between the consignor and the consignee and also to come to an assessment whether the persons to whom the goods were supplied were indulging in sale, retail or wholesale, and to find out whether there was any turnover which may have an escaped assessment. In the circumstances, the style of the belligerent arguments that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer to make the seizure and not release the goods when the Commissioner desired it so, cannot be appreciated by the Court. The enquiry has to be made by the Commercial Taxes Officer. Should he be in error then clearly the petitioner has a remedy by way of an appeal under section 45 of the Act and merely because the petitioner may have to deposit a certain percentage of the tax is no ground to permit escape from the statutory appellate remedy. The petition is misconceived and it is, accordingly, dismissed.