JUDGMENT We have heard Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Mr. Basu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents at length. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/applicant against an order passed by the learned Taxation Tribunal dated March 30, 2007 in case No. R.N. 474 of 2004 (P.D. Prasad & Sons Pvt. Limited v. ACCT [2009] 25 VST 329 (WBTT)). The only point arises in this petition that whether the authorities have any power to issue such order against the petitioner/applicant who was acted as the clearing agent of the consigner of the matter in question and thereby put him within the meaning of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act and the rule 211A of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 so that the penalty can be imposed on them and whether any contravention of the provision of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 can bind him and thereby whether he comes within the purview of section 71B of the said Act for being penalized as has been done in this case. The facts admitted in the matter that the petitioner/applicant acted as a clearing agent of M/s. Sanman Trade Impex Private Limited and Paluck Trade Links and thereafter, in accordance with rule 211A signed the document and transported the same to its destination. It appears that the petitioner challenged the said order before the learned Tribunal against the notice of demand in form 45A issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kharagpur Range, imposing the penalty under section 71B of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 for contravention of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 for non-filing of endorsed copies of declaration as required in sub-rule (6) of rule 211A of the WBST Rules, 1995. The point tried to be urged before us by Mr. The point tried to be urged before us by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel, is that the petitioner's duty as such an agent after delivery of the goods to the transporter named by the principal and thereby the liability of the petitioner/applicant as such agent ceases after the delivery of the goods to the transporter and further he has relied on section 68 and in particular rule 211A(6) and submitted that at the time of transporting such goods for onward movement it is not the duty of the petitioner/applicant to be present at all times to produce such documents before the authorities and further there is no violation on the part of the transporter. It would be only the transporter who can be held so responsible therein. We have also taken into account the other sub-rule (8) of rule 211A of WBST Rules, 1995 which speaks for itself : "Any infringement of any provision of this rule by the person referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to be a contravention of the provisions of section 68 by the person referred to in the said sub-rule." We have also considered the section 68 of the WBST Act, 1994 in question where we have been able to find out that the Act says as follows : "To ensure that there is no evasion of tax, no person shall transport from any railway station, steamer station, airport, port, post office or any check-post set up under section 75 or from any other place any consignment of goods except in accordance with such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed." Therefore, it is clear from the Act itself that the said section specifically stated that no person shall transport from any railway station, steamer station, etc., or from any other place any consignment of goods except in accordance with such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed. Therefore, it is absolutely clear that no person, which includes the clearing agent as well, can get any benefit or can take themselves out of the whole process as has been done or created herein to impose such penalty on the agent. Therefore, it is absolutely clear that no person, which includes the clearing agent as well, can get any benefit or can take themselves out of the whole process as has been done or created herein to impose such penalty on the agent. Therefore, after considering these aspects of the matter and after perusing the order so passed by the learned Tribunal, the points for considerations were (a) whether the impugned notices in form 45A are bad for describing the applicant as transporter (b) whether there had been violation of the provision of section 68 of the WBST Act, 1994 and (c) whether the impugned orders of penalty are liable to be set aside, have been discussed by the learned Tribunal in its order extensively. According to us the explanations and/or the reasons which are given by the learned Tribunal in dealing with the facts of the matter in question, in our opinion, cannot call for any interference by us as we feel that the learned Tribunal correctly came to the conclusion and held against the petitioner/applicant herein. Therefore, we do not find any reason to differ from the opinion expressed by the learned Tribunal and we uphold the same. Accordingly, this writ petition must fail and is hereby dismissed. This order will also govern in case No. WPTT 634 of 2007.