JUDGMENT NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Vehicle No. RJ-02G-3900 was checked on May 12, 2000, all the required documents as per provisions of section 78(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as, "the Act of 1994") relating to goods were available at the time of checking of vehicle, except declaration form ST-18A. The assessing officer was of the view that form ST-18A was not produced, therefore, there is a breach of section 78(2), therefore, he issued a notice to levy penalty to the assessee. In reply to show-cause notice, the assessee submitted declaration form ST-18A, however, the assessing officer vide its order dated May 12, 2000 levied penalty under section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 at 30 per cent on the value of goods, i.e., Rs. 3,76,420 amounting to Rs. 1,12,926. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by the assessee, which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated May 3, 2001. The Revenue preferred a second appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, but the same was dismissed vide order dated August 27, 2002, which has been impugned in this revision petition preferred on behalf of the Revenue. I have considered the submissions of both the parties advanced before me. So far as the facts of the case are concerned both the parties admitted that all the required documents, except declaration form ST-18A, were available at the time of checking of the vehicle. Declaration form ST-18A was also produced by the assessee before assessing officer along with reply to show-cause notice issued by assessing officer. Provisions of section 78(5) and section 78(2)(a) of the Act of 1994 were considered by the honourable apex court in State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals reported in [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC); [2002] 1 SCC 279 wherein the honourable apex court held that "... If by mistake some of the documents are not readily available at the time of checking, principles of natural justice may require some opportunity being given to produce the same. If by mistake some of the documents are not readily available at the time of checking, principles of natural justice may require some opportunity being given to produce the same. ..." The learned Tax Board in its impugned order relied upon Kaluram Madangopal's case [2000] 4 RLW 338 (Raj) wherein this court held that if any document or a declaration, which could not be produced at the time of checking, was produced later on during the course of inquiry, it would lead to substantial compliance of the statutory provisions of law. The learned Tax Board has also relied upon the judgment of the honourable apex court delivered in the case of D.P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC); [2002] 1 SCC 279. There is no dispute in between both the parties in the present case that declaration form ST-18A was submitted before the assessing officer along with reply to show-cause notice, i.e., before passing the assessment order. In these circumstances, in my view, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tax Board both have rightly set aside the penalty imposed against the assessee under section 78(5) of the Act of 1994. The legal question involved in the present case has already been decided by this court as well as the honourable apex court in the cases referred above. Therefore I do not find any reason to interfere in the orders passed by both the appellate authorities. It is a settled law that revision petition under section 86 of the Act of 1994, before this court, lies on a question of law. The present matter relates to question of facts and there is concurrent finding of facts by two appellate authorities below, which cannot be interfered with by this court in revisional jurisdiction. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.