ORDER : Heard Mr. P. Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Manokaran Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, in both these writ petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed by the Transport Contractors, who had been engaged by Consignors at Kerala for transport of raw rubber procured with the permission of Rubber Board of Consignees to Calcutta and Bihar. 3. The goods had crossed K.G. Chavadi Check-post and entered the State of Tamil Nadu and transit passes have been generated. It cannot be disputed that the transit passes will contain the vehicle number, which is transporting the goods, the check post through which the vehicle will exit the State of Tamil Nadu and the time within which the vehicle should move out of the State of Tamil Nadu. The Registration Numbers of the vehicles, which had been mentioned in the transit passes, are registered in the State of Kerala. But, however, the petitioner has altered the vehicle numbers in Form-IV issued by the Rubber Board and substituted the same with the registration number of the lorries assigned by the State of Andhra Pradesh. This is evident from a perusal of the impugned order. 4. Tampering the record issued by the Rubber Board, which would form part of the statutory documents, is a criminal offence and the petitioner is liable for prosecution. That apart the vehicles, said to be carrying the goods, did not cross the check post as mentioned in the transit passes, but crossed the check post at Puzhal, where they were detained and an order was passed on 20.12.2004, demanding tax, surcharge and penalty. The petitioners submitted their objections stating that there was transshipment, after the vehicle came in the State of Tamil Nadu, and they had taken bigger vehicle, with Andhra Pradesh registration number, and in the said vehicle the goods had been transported and the goods have now reached the respective destinations and taxes have been paid in the respective states. 5. This contention raised by the petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Enforcement North, was not accepted and by the detailed orders, dated 24.12.2014, the petitions filed by the petitioners to set-aside the demand of tax and penalty was rejected. 5. This contention raised by the petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Enforcement North, was not accepted and by the detailed orders, dated 24.12.2014, the petitions filed by the petitioners to set-aside the demand of tax and penalty was rejected. As against which, the petitioners approached the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who had confirmed the orders passed by the fourth respondent, as confirmed by the third respondent. Now, the petitioners are before this Court raising the very same contentions, which were canvassed before the respondents 1, 3 and 4. 6. On a perusal of the materials produced before this Court, it is evidently clear that the vehicles, which transported the goods from the State of Kerala, did not carry the goods, when going out of the State. That apart, vehicle numbers in Form-IV issued by the Rubber Board have been tampered. Further, the time schedule fixed in the transit passes have not been adhered to and the goods did not pass through the designated check posts as mentioned in the transit passes. 7. In such circumstances, this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not examine the factual findings recorded by respondents 1, 3 and 4, as if acting as a third appellate authority over the respondents. Therefore, the findings of fact recorded by the respondents call for no interference. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. However, taking note of the stand of the petitioners that the goods have reached the respective States and they have also suffered taxes in the respective States, it is open to the petitioners to approach the third respondent with proof of payment of tax in the other States, by way of a representation, and if the same is done, the third respondent shall consider the petitioners' representation on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs are closed.