ORDER A. M. SAPRE, J. - Challenge in this writ is to one seizure memo (annexure H) and the penalty order dated October 9, 1989 (annexure J), passed by Sales Tax Officer (Investigation) Check Post, Sendhwa. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. On September 19, 1989, the Sales Tax Sleuths intercepted one truck bearing No. MKO 9186 at Sendhwa check-post, which was carrying Indian-made foreign liquor (IMFL) - 400 bottles from Maharashtra to Madhya Pradesh. The person in-charge of offending truck carrying the liquor was asked to produce the necessary documents so as to satisfy the authorities that the goods in transit are duly tax-paid. The person concerned, one Mr. Sharma failed to produce the satisfactory proof and the documents produced had several defects. Accordingly the sales tax authorities seized the truck and initiated the proceedings. The person concerned was given adequate opportunity in the proceedings to tender required documents to show that the goods in transit were being carried in accordance with the requirement of State as also Central Sales Tax Act. However, none appeared in the proceedings, nor filed any documents. It is clear when one reads the impugned penalty order : The assessing officer then on the basis of material on record and the documents produced at the time of seizure held that seizure effected by the authorities is legal and proper and that the person concerned failed to file and satisfy the authorities for want of documents that they have complied with the rules and paid the tax. Accordingly, the penalty was imposed. It is this order which is impugned in this petition. Pending writ, the petitioner had also challenged this impugned order in revision. The revisionary authority also dismissed the revision by its order dated October 5, 1990 (annexure M-1) and upheld the penalty. By amendment, the petitioner has challenged the revisionary order also. Heard Shri S. M. Dagonkar, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri P. Verma, learned Government Advocate, for respondent-State. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record of the case, I find no merit in the writ. In this writ the only question that need to be gone into is, whether the order of revisionary authority dated October 5, 1990 (annexure M-1) which has upheld the penalty order is legal and proper ? Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record of the case, I find no merit in the writ. In this writ the only question that need to be gone into is, whether the order of revisionary authority dated October 5, 1990 (annexure M-1) which has upheld the penalty order is legal and proper ? In my opinion, no flaw both on facts and in law can be found or/and noticed in the impugned revisionary order. The learned revisionary authority in great detail went in facts, examined each and every document filed by the petitioner for the first time before the revisionary authority in support of their case and then came to a conclusion that the seizure made by the authorities under section 29-A of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (since repealed) while seizing the liquor is legal and proper and that petitioner and the person from whose possession the liquor in question was seized failed to satisfy that the goods in question were properly tax-paid goods. For coming to this conclusion, the learned revisionary authority also commented upon the petitioner that they seem to have created some fresh documentary evidence to support the transaction inter se consignor and consignee. This court in its writ jurisdiction cannot go into the factual aspect of the issue, nor can examine the correctness of the documents filed by the petitioner at revisionary stage and on the strength of which the impugned finding was returned resulting in upholding of penalty. It cannot be disputed that the authorities had possessed of the power to check the goods in transit and if necessary to seize it. Such power is conferred on the authorities - check-post officer under section 29-A(8) of the Act. In their opinion, it was a case falling in sub-section (a), (b) and (c) of section 29-A(8) because the documents filed by the petitioner were not found to be in conformity with the requirement and hence, a case of contravention of these sub-sections was made out empowering the check-post officer to seize the goods and impose the penalty. In their opinion, it was a case falling in sub-section (a), (b) and (c) of section 29-A(8) because the documents filed by the petitioner were not found to be in conformity with the requirement and hence, a case of contravention of these sub-sections was made out empowering the check-post officer to seize the goods and impose the penalty. In my opinion, if the two authorities under the Act come to a conclusion that a case of contravention of sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 29-A(8) is made out on facts and that a discretion to impose a penalty should follow then the writ court does not find any jurisdictional error in the approach and finding of the two authorities, i.e., assessing and revisionary. As a consequence, the petition is found to be meritless. It is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.