ORDER NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned assessing authority vide its order dated November 17, 2004 levied penalty under section 78(10A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act of 1994") for alleged violation of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 78 of the Act of 1994. Being aggrieved with the same, the assessee preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Thereafter the Department preferred second appeal but the same was also dismissed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer vide impugned judgment dated September 30, 2009, which is under challenge in this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly and frankly admitted that required documents were available with the vehicle at the time of its checking, but his contention is that since seal of check-post was not there on the relevant documents, therefore, it should have been treated as violation of section 78(2)(b) of the Act of 1994. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the first appellate authority as well as the Rajasthan Tax Board both and I find that both the appellate authorities have rightly accepted the explanation of the assessee for not bearing seal of check-post on the required documents, to the effect that the person in-charge of the vehicle had come to Dhaba complex, Bhiwadi for his some personal work. Both the appellate authorities have thoroughly examined the matter and recorded a finding that it is not the case of violation of section 78(2)(b) of the Act, as all the required documents were accompanied with the vehicle. It is not the case of the Department that the driver or person in charge of the vehicle abstained from bringing or stopping the vehicle at the nearest check-post. In these circumstances, I do not find any force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also relevant to mention that revision to this court lies where a question of law is involved in it. The controversy involved in the present matter relates to question of fact and there is concurrent finding of fact by both the appellate authorities. In these circumstances, I do not find any question of law involved in the present revision petition and there is no merit also in it. The controversy involved in the present matter relates to question of fact and there is concurrent finding of fact by both the appellate authorities. In these circumstances, I do not find any question of law involved in the present revision petition and there is no merit also in it. Therefore, the revision is dismissed in limine.