ORDER : BIRENDRA KUMAR, J. 1. This civil revision under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act , 1994 challenges the order of Rajasthan Tax Board dated27.06.2001 passed in appeal No.500/93/ST/Jaipur. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged interalia in the business of import of plastics and chemicals. The petitioner – company imported 90 M.T. of Acrylic Plastic Scrap (crushed). The consignment arrived at Kandla Port of India. The cargo was cleared after compliance of required formalities and payment of requisite custom duty. Out of the said 90 M.T. Acrylic Plastic, the company sold 46 M.T. at the port itself to five different parties of Jodhpur in the course of interstate trade through the orders placed by the broker. The parties were insisting for immediate dispatch of the goods instead of waiting for the receipt of the respective invoices etc. from Mumbai (the head office of the petitioner). Accordingly, bilties were prepared in the name of the respective purchasers of Jodhpur. However, due to bonafide need, the bilties were prepared in the name of Satyam Enterprises, Jodhpur, who was not one of the five purchasers, rather, only for the reason that identity of Satyam Enterprises was known to the petitioner. Through Indian Freight Carriers, a transporter, the goods were sent in five trucks for delivery to the referred purchasers, namely, M/s. Jai Bajrang Plaastic Jodhpur, M/s. Avon Plastics Jodhpur, M/s. S. Abdul Rehman Noor Mohd. Jodhpur, M/s. L.P. & Bros. Jodhpur and M/s. Shanker Industries, Jodhpur. Each of the trucks, registration no. whereof is mentioned were to deliver to each of the respective five purchaser party. After reaching at Jodhpur, the three trucks driver delivered the goods to respective buyers, however, one of the truck went to Satyam enterprises, but the Satyam Enterprises refused to sign the documents in token of delivery for obvious reason that he had not ordered anything. Rather, Satyam Enterprises lodged complaint with the custom authorities and also FIR with the Police Station bearing FIR No.108/1998 on 14.08.1992. 3. It is worth to mention that according to the petitioner, the deliveries were made on 13.08.1992, 14.08.1992 and on 17.08.1992 to the above named purchasers. Later on, the Collector of Jodhpur vide order dated 04.11.1992 released the goods after verification of the documents of the petitioner regarding payment of custom duty etc. 3. It is worth to mention that according to the petitioner, the deliveries were made on 13.08.1992, 14.08.1992 and on 17.08.1992 to the above named purchasers. Later on, the Collector of Jodhpur vide order dated 04.11.1992 released the goods after verification of the documents of the petitioner regarding payment of custom duty etc. and on satisfaction that the petitioner was owner of the goods. But the order of the Collector could not be affected and re-transportation of the goods to Mumbai was not done as custom authorities detained all the trucks. Vide order dated 18.08.1992, the Commercial Tax Authorities asked the petitioner to file show cause as to why the goods be not impounded. Due to otherwise engagement, the petitioner did not filed show cause, rather, sought for time by a written request. 4. The Commercial Tax Authority did not allowed time and passed ex parte order dated 13.10.1992 imposing maximum penalty of Rs.6,00,000/- @ 30% by taking value of the goods as Rs.20,00,000/-. The commercial Tax Authority was of the view that five trucks in the name of consignee M/s. Satyam Enterprises, Jodhpur were not addressed to real consignee, as such it was a case of evasion of tax. 5. The petitioner challenged the order of the commercial tax officer in first appeal before Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur. Vide order dated 31.03.1993, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal. The said order was challenged before the Rajasthan Tax Board and by the impugned order, the Tax Board also dismissed the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities have exercised jurisdiction under Section 22 A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act , which is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as Section 22 A applies in the matter of goods in transit, whereas in the case on hand four trucks were seized from different consignee and one was missing. The valuation of goods of missing truck was taken at par with the valuation of goods in other trucks. Therefore, the authorities have acted with material illegality in assuming jurisdiction not vested under Section 22 A of the Sales Tax Act. 7. The valuation of goods of missing truck was taken at par with the valuation of goods in other trucks. Therefore, the authorities have acted with material illegality in assuming jurisdiction not vested under Section 22 A of the Sales Tax Act. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that only question of law is to be looked into at this stage and both the authorities have concurrently taken a view based on material on the record against the petitioner, therefore, this Court need not interfere with the order of Tax Board or any other order. 8. The petitioner has pleaded as follows to show bonafide of its action :- A. The Goods were transported from the port itself without waiting for billities from Bombay Head Office in the name of five purchasers (whose name is disclosed above) due to their pressure of early movement of the goods. Infact, those five named purchasers specifically denied that they had purchased the goods which were seized from their respective premises. B. Another defence is that goods were send in the name of Satyam Enterprises for the reason that details and identity of the five purchasers was not known. Before sending the goods to Satyam Enterprises, Satyam Enterprises was not taken into confidence as such he readily informed to the Commercial Department and lodged an FIR that unauthorized goods has reached his destination. Moreover, the aforesaid defence is contrary to the documents available on the record. 9. The point for consideration is whether the case on hand is covered under Section 22 A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act , 1954. For better appreciation, the said provision is being reproduced below:- “ 22A. Establishment of check-post or barrier and inspection of goods while in transit. 9. The point for consideration is whether the case on hand is covered under Section 22 A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act , 1954. For better appreciation, the said provision is being reproduced below:- “ 22A. Establishment of check-post 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 of a check-post or the erection of a barrier or both at such places, as may be specified in the notification: [Provided that the Commissioner may not direct the setting up of a check-post or the erection of a barrier for a period exceeding six months.] (2) At every check-post or barrier set up or erected under sub- section (1) or at any other place when so required by any officer empowered by the State Government in this behalf, the driver or any other person incharge of a [vehicle, boat or animal] shall stop the same and keep it stationary so long as may reasonably be necessary and allow the officer-in- charge of the check-post or barrier or the officer empowered as aforesaid to examine [the goods carried in or on] in such [vehicle, boat or animal and inspect all records relating to the goods carried which are in the possession of such driver or other person incharge, who shall, if so required, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the [vehicle, boat or animal) and also the names & addresses of the consignor and consignees [, if any,] [and in case the consignee is a registered dealer whether in this State or in any other State, the number with the name of the district of issue of the registration certificate, if any, of such consignor or the consignee, as the case may be.] [(3) The owner or person incharge of a vehicle, boat or animal shall carry with him a goods vehicle record, a trip sheet or a log book as the case may be and [such other documents] as may be prescribed in respect of the goods carried in or in the vehicle, boat or animal as the case may be, and produce the same before any officer incharge of check-post or barrier or any other officer as may he empowered by the Government in that behalf. The owner or person incharge of a vehicle, boat or animal entering the State limits or leaving the States limits shall also give a declaration containing such particulars as may be prescribed of the goods carried in or on the vehicle, boat or animal, as the case may be, before the officer incharge of the check-post or barrier or the officer empowered as aforesaid and give one copy of the declaration to such officer, and keep one copy with him. [(4) X X X] (5) The officer-in-charge of a check-post or barrier of the officer empowered under sub-section (2), "[may seize or pass order to retain under Sub- section (9)] [XXX] any goods which are under transport by a vehicle, boat or animal and are not covered by a goods vehicle record a trip sheet or log book, as the case may be, and 2[other documents prescribed under sub-section (3)] and, when the goods vehicle, boat or animal carrying any goods enters or leaves the State limits, the declaration referred to in sub-section (3) also, [(6) The officer-in-charge of the check-post or barrier or any other officer empowered in that behalf [may seize or pass order to retain under Sub-section (9)) any goods (other than exempted goods) which are under transport by a vehicle, boat or animal in respect of which the declaration is false or which are not covered by the documents prescribed under sub- section (3): Provided that before seizing any goods, the officer-in-charge of the check-post or barrier or any other officer empowered in that behalf shall record his reasons for doing so shall give a receipt for the goods to the person from whose possession or control they are seized. Explanation 1. For the purpose of this sub- section, exempted goods includes goods, the sale or purchase of which by dealers in general is exempt from tax without any condition or on the sole condition that an exemption certificate, with or without payment of fee, is obtained or that the goods are recorded in the registration certificate of the dealer claiming the exemption. [Explanation II. For the purpose of this section the goods under transport means goods which have been handed over to a carrier and/complete delivery thereof has not taken from such carrier. Explanation III. [Explanation II. For the purpose of this section the goods under transport means goods which have been handed over to a carrier and/complete delivery thereof has not taken from such carrier. Explanation III. Carrier means any person or agency who under- takes to carry or transport goods from one destination to another.] (7) (a) The officer-in-charge of the check-post or barrier or any other officer not below the rank of an Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, empowered in this behalf may, after giving the owner or person incharge of the goods a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding such further enquiry as he may deem fit, impose on him for possession of goods not covered by goods vehicle record, and other documents prescribed under sub-section (3) or for submission of false declaration or documents a penalty not exceeding [30%] of the value of such goods, as may be determined by such officer 4[X XX). [Provided that where the goods are being carried without proper documents as required by sub-section (3) or with any false declaration or statements and the owner or the incharge or the driver of the vehicle, boat, or animal carrying such goods is found in collusion for such carrying of goods, the vehicle, boat or animal shall also be seized by the officer empowered under sub-section (7), and such officer, after affording an opportunity of being heard to such owner; incharge or driver may impose a penalty not exceeding 30% of the value of the goods cerried and shall release the vehicle, boat or animal and the payment of the said penalty or on furnishing such security in such form as prescribed under clause (b) of sub-section (7): Provided further that when an owner, incharge or driver of a vehicle, boat or animal is found guilty second time of the offence mentioned in the preceding proviso, he shall be liable to a maximum penalty as mentioned in the preceding proviso and the vehicle, boat or animal carrying the goods may be kept seized and detained for a period not exceeding 30 days after the date of the payment of the penalty or furnishing of the security.] (b) Such officer may release any of the goods seized under sub- section (5) or sub-section (6) on payment of the penalty under clause (a) or on furnishing such security in such form as may be prescribed for the payment thereof, as he may consider necessary.] [(8) All provisions of this section shall apply mutatis mutandis to goods and animals liable to tax under this Act which may be carried by any means of transportation other than those specified in sub- section (2).] ["(9) An officer empowered under this section shall have the power to inspect goods under transport including the documents and records relating thereto, and may direct a carrier not to part with the goods including re-transporting or re-booking till such verification is done or such enquiry is made as is deemed necessary by such authority."] [(10) No order deemed to be of penalty under this section shall be quashed or be void or voidable for want of seizure or mistake, defect or omission in seizure.]” 10. Evidently, explanation II above makes it abundantly clear that “goods in transport” means goods which have been handed over to a carrier and complete delivery thereof has not taken from such carrier. In the case on hand, none of the five asserted consignee claimed that in fact they had purchased the goods as claimed by the petitioner. The addressee Satyam Enterprises gone to the extent of making complaint against act of the petitioner. Therefore, at the time of seizure, the goods was with the carrier as such was in transit and covered by the explanation of Section 22A. 11. In the result, this Court does not find any merit in this Civil Revision. Accordingly, this Civil Revision stands dismissed.