Judgment :- H.L. Dattu, C.J. The petitioner is a dealer in Ghee and other food products. It is also registered as a dealer under the provisions of Kerala General Sales Tax Act and doing business at Mahe, Pondicherry. 2. In this original petition filed, the only question that would arise for our consideration and decision is, whether the intelligence officer of the Department was justified in imposing penalty under Section 45A of KGST Act on the sole ground that the petitioner has not surrendered transit pass at the last check post point. 3. Thefacts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of the original petition is as under:- The petitioner, in the course of its business, had purchased RKG Brand Ghee from a dealer in Kangayam in Tamil Nadu. The said goods was being transported in a transportation vehicle to the place of business of the petitioner which is in Pondicherry. The goods vehicle has to pass through the State of Kerala to reach Pondicherry. The driver in charge of the vehicle has stopped the vehicle near the entry check post after his entry into the State and had obtained a transit pass from the officer in charge of the check post. However, he had failed to deliver the transit pass to the officer in charge of last check post before its exit from the State. 4. The Intelligence officer, Investigation Branch, after complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 30-B read with Section 45-A of the Act has passed an order, imposing a penalty of Rs.2,54,000/-. Petitioner after unsuccessfully filing of two revision petitions, first before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kozhikode and then before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, has filed this Original Petition, inter alia requesting this court to quash the concurrent findings of the authorities under the Act. 5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the revenue. Having given our anxious consideration to the case pleaded by the petitioner’s learned counsel, we are of the opinion that, the concurrent findings of fact need not be disturbed by us. 6. Section 30-B of the Act, provides for transit of goods through the State and issue of transit pass. Provisions have been made to safeguard the State’s Revenue. Having given our anxious consideration to the case pleaded by the petitioner’s learned counsel, we are of the opinion that, the concurrent findings of fact need not be disturbed by us. 6. Section 30-B of the Act, provides for transit of goods through the State and issue of transit pass. Provisions have been made to safeguard the State’s Revenue. Sub-section (1) provides that, when a vehicle or vessel carrying the goods from a any place outside the State passes through the through the State, the owner or driver or person in charge of such vehicle is obliged to obtain a transit pass in the prescribed form for such goods from the officer in charge of the first check post after his entry into the State and surrender the same to the officer in charge of the last check post in the State. When the owner or driver fails to deliver the transit pass at the last check post, it will be presumed that the goods have been sold within the State by evading tax liability as envisaged under sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) of Section 30-B of the Act. The above provisions are introduced in the Statute to ensure that goods entering the State en route to another State in transit are not sold within the State evading tax liability. 7. Thefact finding authorities in the instant case, after detailed consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 45A of the Act, has given a positive finding that the person in charge of the goods vehicle after obtaining transit pass from the officer in charge of first check post after his entry into the State has filed to deliver the said transit pass to the officer in charge at the last check post and secondly, the goods in question have been sold in the State by evading tax liability under the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed any cogent evidence before us to dispel the finding and conclusions reached by the fact finding authorities under the Act. The writ court is not an appellate forum. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed any cogent evidence before us to dispel the finding and conclusions reached by the fact finding authorities under the Act. The writ court is not an appellate forum. The writ court will not interfere with the findings of fact reached by the authorities under a fiscal statute, unless those findings are either wholly perverse or wholly arbitrary or contrary to the statutory provision or the well established principles of law enunciated by Apex Court. None are present in this case. Therefore, while concurring with the factual findings and conclusion reached by the authorities under the Act, in our considered view, the Original Petition requires to be rejected and we do so. In view of the order passed in the Original Petition, all pending C.M.Ps. are also dismissed. Ordered accordingly.