ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 15/10/2003 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed and orders dated 19/4/1995 passed by the Assessing Officer and order dated 30/6/2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Ist, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur have been set aside. 2. The Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti Evasion), Udaipur checked vehicle No. HR-38/6977 at Goverdhan Vilas Choraha, Udaipur and found that goods i.e. MI brand copper wire bars are being transported with false documents. The inspection report dated 26/3/1995 was prepared pointing out the defects, deficiencies and contradictions in the documents produced before him. After issuing notice under Section 22A (7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994) ('the Act') and after considering the submissions of the assessee, penalty was imposed. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by its order dated 30/6/2000 dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent. 4. On further appeal being filed by the respondent assessee before the Tax Board, the Tax Board came to the conclusion that the goods were being transported from Mumbai to Delhi and, therefore, under the provisions of Section 22A of the Act the CTO had no jurisdiction and consequently set aside the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tax Bard committed grave error in accepting the appeal filed by the respondent. It was submitted that a detailed order was passed by the Assessing Officer indicating the defects, deficiencies and contradictions in the documents produced by the respondent, which finding was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tax Board to interfere with the well reasoned and legal orders, which were justified in the circumstances of the case and, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Reliance was placed on a Full Bench judgment of this Court at Jaipur Bench in case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Indian Oil Corporation : 2016 (1) RLW 745 (Raj.). 7. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions. 6. Reliance was placed on a Full Bench judgment of this Court at Jaipur Bench in case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Indian Oil Corporation : 2016 (1) RLW 745 (Raj.). 7. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to even check the vehicle in question as the same was transporting the goods from Mumbai to Delhi and, therefore, the order impugned does call for any interference. 8. Reliance was placed on State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. M/s. Sodhi Transport Co. Jaipur & Anr., (2001) 10 Sales Tax Today 219, Commercial Taxes Officer v. M/s. Globe Transport Corporation, S.B. Sales Tax Revision No.165/2011 decided on 26/2/2013 at Jaipur Bench & Assistant Commercial Tax Officer v. Delhi Indore Transport Carrier & Ors., S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.215/2010 decided on 24/9/2015 at Jaipur Bench. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. The Assessing Officer, while passing the order under Section 22A(7) of the Act of 1954 came to the conclusion that the goods were transported with a view to prevent or evade tax and consequently passed the assessment order imposing penalty on the respondent. 11. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) did find any reason to interfere with the said order. However, the Tax Board by the impugned judgment came to the following conclusion : 10 & dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh dks nLrkostksa ds ckjs esa 'kd bl ckr ij gqvk fd MªkbZoj ds }kjk bl eky ls lEcfU/kr nLrkostksa dks pSdiksLV ij izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA bl lEcU/k esa ge O;ogkjh ds vf/koDrk ls lgefr j[krs gSa fd tkap ds le; M~kbZoj us laHkor% ,slk tkucw> dj ugha fd;k gks cfYd =qfVo'k mlls ,slk gks x;k gks] D;ksafd gekjk ekuuk gS fd 20 Vu eky dks fNikdj ifjogfur djuk laHko ugha gSaA rdZ dks [kkfrj ;g eku Hkh fy;k tk;s fd eky xyr nLrkostksa ds lkFk ifjogfur gks jgk Fkk rks Hkh ;g Li"V ugha gS fd tc eky cEcbZ ls fnYyh tk jgk Fkk rks jktLFkku fodz; dj vf/kfu;e ds rgr dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh dk {ks=kf/kdkj dSls l`ftr gqvk rFkk ;g Hkh ugha crk;k x;k gS fd bl ifjogu ds nkSjku jkT; esa fdl izdkj djkioapu gksrk] D;ksafd jktLFkku fodz; dj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 22, esa ;g Li"V gS fd %& "22A. Establishment of checkpost or barrier and inspection of goods while in transit. - (1) If the State Government or the Commissioner considers it necessary that with a view to prevent or check evasion of tax under this Act in any place or places within the State it is necessary so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct the setting up of a check-post." ^^blls Li"V gS fd /kkjk 22,¼7½ esa dk;Zokgh rHkh dh tk;sxh tcfd mldk mn~ns'; bl vf/kfu;e ds rgr olwy fd;s tkus okys dj dh pksjh dks jksduk gksA izLrqr izdj.k esa dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh us ;g LFkkfir djus dk iz;kl ugh fd;k gS fd ifjogfur gks jgs eky dks jkT; esa mrkjk tkuk FkkA ;fn eky jkT; esa mrkjk tkrk rks fuf'pr :i ls bl vf/kfu;e ds rgr olwy fd;s tkus okys dj dh pksjh gksus dh lEHkkouk curhA ijUrq ;gka ,slk dnkfi ugh gqvk gS D;ksafd eky eqEcbZ ls lh/kk fnYyh tk jgk FkkA O;ogkjh ds vf/koDrk us rks ;g fuosnu Hkh fd;k Fkk fd dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh pkgsa rks eky dks lhy dj nsa rFkk jkT; ds vafre pSd iksLV ls ;g vko'oLr djk ys fd eky ogka ls ikl gks x;k gS ;k ughA bu rF;ksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd ifjogu dk xarO; LFkku fnYyh Fkk vkSj eky jkT; esa ugh mrjuk FkkA vr% Hkyh&Hkkafr izekf.kr gS fd jkT; dk djkiopau laHko ugha Fkk rFkk blfy, dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh dk jktLFkku fodz; dj vf/kfu;e] 1954 ds rgr /kkjk 22,¼7½ esa {ks=kf/kdkj gh ugh curk FkkA O;ogkjh ds fo}ku vf/kd`r vf/koDrk }kjk m)fjr U;kf;d n`"Vkar eS0 lks<+h VªkaliksVZ dEiuh 108 ,l0Vh0lh0 490 ¼vkj0Vh0Vh0½ ,oa lh<+h VªkaliksVZ dEiuh ¼2001½10 ,l0Vh0Vh0 218 lq0dks0 ls Hkh ;g fu"d"kZ] lefFkZr gksrk gSA bl izdkj gekjk ekuuk gS fd dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh }kjk/kkjk 22,¼7½ esa vkjksfir 'kkfLr fof/klEer ugha gksus ds dkj.k vikLruh; gSA^^ 12. The Tax Board came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer has recorded any finding that the goods being transported from Mumbai to Delhi were to be unloaded in the State of Rajasthan and, therefore, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the order impugned. 13. The Tax Board came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer has recorded any finding that the goods being transported from Mumbai to Delhi were to be unloaded in the State of Rajasthan and, therefore, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the order impugned. 13. The Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the judgment in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad-II, Jaipur v. Sodhi Transport Company : (1998) 108 STC 490 delivered by then Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, in the case of Sodhi Transport Company (supra) upheld the law laid down therein that as there was nothing on record to indicate that an attempt was made to unload the goods or part thereof or to sell them in any place in Rajasthan, there was no question of any attempt to evade tax payable under the Act and consequently dismissed the writ petition filed by the State. 14. The law laid down in the case of Sodhi Transport Company (supra) has been consistently followed by this Court. In the case of Delhi Indore Transport Carrier (supra) this Court held as under: "4. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner and in my view, the order of the Tax Board is just and proper and no infirmity is noticed in the order impugned. It is admitted that the Tax Board has found as a finding of fact that the goods were being transported from Indore to Delhi and merely passing through the State of Rajasthan and as such, there was no occasion for the AO to intercept or check the vehicle at the check post to come to the conclusion on their own and such presumption on the part of the AO was proper. Even the AO in the assessment order has clearly mentioned that the bills and vouchers were found and except at one place CST number of one of the parties was found that does mean that the bill becomes forged, wrong or otherwise. Even the AO, in the assessment order imposing penalty has stated, name of purchaser along with bill number, builty number, etc. 5. Even the AO, in the assessment order imposing penalty has stated, name of purchaser along with bill number, builty number, etc. 5. In the case of Commercial Taxes Officer, Alwar v. Globe Transport Corporation [2014] 2 VST-OL 575 (Raj) (S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 165 of 2011), decided on February 26, 2013, which was also a case of goods being checked in the State when it was intended to be delivered in the State of Rajasthan and this court found that 25 bundles of iron springs and 25 bundles of axles, were being sent from Khanna (Punjab) to Sarkhej (Gujarat). However, merely because the vehicle did stop or minor discrepancies having been noticed by the intercepting team of the Revenue, this court primarily came to the conclusion that merely because the vehicle was passing through the State of Rajasthan, the question of imposition of penalty under section 73(5) does arise. Even if there were minor discrepancies but when there was no jurisdiction at all of this State, then even the checking was found to be improper. This court in the above judgment, relying upon the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC), State of Kerala v. M.M. Mathew [1978] 42 STC 348 (SC) and judgment of this court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Sodhi Transport Co. [2001] 10 Sales Tax Today 219 (Raj), held as under (pages 581 and 582 in 2 VST-OL): ". . . If a vehicle was carrying goods from one State to another State through Rajasthan even with a view to evade tax of other State, the authority empowered under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 had no jurisdiction to impose any penalty under section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. For evasion of any tax taking place outside Rajasthan, the Act had no application to it. . . . ... The only question before us is whether the person incharge of the goods at the time of checking can be made liable for the payment of penalty in case he fails to produce the requisite documents. The principle laid down in Sant Lal's case, [1993] 91 STC 321 (SC) was also followed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Swastic Roadways v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bharatpur [1996] 103 STC 106 (MP). The principle laid down in Sant Lal's case, [1993] 91 STC 321 (SC) was also followed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Swastic Roadways v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bharatpur [1996] 103 STC 106 (MP). It was held that no duty on clearing and forwarding agents and transporters or common carriers to furnish to the Commissioner, information including statement of accounts in respect of the transactions of any dealer or to maintain the registers in the prescribed forms could be cast. No penalty could be imposed upon them in the case of contravention of such provisions. . . . In this view of the matter section 22A, RST Act, being applicable, confined as it is to the checking of evasion of tax under the RST Act in Rajasthan, the question of imposing penalty under section 22A(7), RST Act in cases of goods transiting through Rajasthan cannot arise. The sales tax authorities of Rajasthan can, of course, stop and check any vehicle but if it contains goods coming from another State and bound for another State they can only insist and ensure that the goods leave Rajasthan." 6. The same view has been taken by this court in the case of ACTO, FS, Bharatpur v. S. Vrindavan Oil Products, Bharatpur, [2006] 15 Tax 109, Up-Date 3 June 1-15-2006) and Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad, Bhadra v. Agarwal Pesticides & Fertilizers, Sriganganagar [2001] 29 RTJS 90 (Raj). 7. In the light of the facts found and noticed by the Tax Board as well as this court, the question of imposition of penalty does arise and in my view, on such finding of fact recorded by the Tax Board, which is based on appreciation of evidence, no question of law can be said to emerge out of the order passed by the Tax Board. Consequently, the instant sales tax revision petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed." 15. So far as the judgment in the case of Indian Oil Corporation (supra) is concerned, the same laid down the principles relating to goods sought to be unloaded within the State and as such the same would have no application to the facts of the present case. So far as the judgment in the case of Indian Oil Corporation (supra) is concerned, the same laid down the principles relating to goods sought to be unloaded within the State and as such the same would have no application to the facts of the present case. In view of the fact situation available in the present case, as observed by the Tax Board and the law laid down by this Court, the order passed by the Tax Board does not call for any interference. 16. Consequently, there is no substance in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.