JUDGMENT N. ANANDA - The appellant had suffered penalty in terms of the order made by the check-post officer as per annexure O. Against the said order, it was in appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes who by order dated April 25, 2009 accepted the appeal and set aside the order made in terms of annexure O. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by exercising suo motu revisional powers under section 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, "the Act") set aside the order made by the first appellate authority - Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and restored the order of penalty. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. From the perusal of orders in terms of annexure O and the order of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in terms of annexure A, we find that vehicle bearing No. KA 01 C 6476 which was transporting the goods belonging to the appellant was intercepted in State of Karnataka, viz., check-post (IN), Attibele, Anekal Taluk and it was found that the goods that were being transported were not accompanied by documents in terms of section 53(2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the goods were consigned from M/s. Bridgestone Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd., Singapore to M/s. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Madhya Pradesh via Chennai Harbour. The learned counsel would further submit that M/s. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., has its branch office at Bangalore. In terms of the stock transfer order issued by the head office, the goods were being transported to Bangalore and there has not been violation of section 53 of the Act which we are not persuaded to agree for the following reason. Section 53(2) of the Act prescribes the documents to accompany the goods. From the contents of the invoice at annexure C, we find that the consignee is M/s. Bridgestone India Private Limited, Kheda Growth Centre, District : Dhar, Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, the appellant cannot be heard to say that the consignee is M/s. Bridgestone India Private Limited, Bangalore. Section 53(2) of the Act prescribes the documents to accompany the goods. From the contents of the invoice at annexure C, we find that the consignee is M/s. Bridgestone India Private Limited, Kheda Growth Centre, District : Dhar, Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, the appellant cannot be heard to say that the consignee is M/s. Bridgestone India Private Limited, Bangalore. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in view of this stock transfer order, goods were being consigned from Chennai harbour to its branch office at Bangalore and in fact such transfer was supported by form KK issued by the forwarding agency which is in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. In order to reject the submission, we state that the import of goods came to an end after goods were received at Chennai port. Thereafter if there were to be any internal arrangement, for stock transfer that would not entitle the appellant to divert the goods to some other destination other than the one mentioned in the invoice. The check-post officer has levied three times penalty. The contravention of provisions of section 53(2) of the Act provides minimum penalty of two times tax liability which may extend to the maximum penalty of three times tax liability. The check-post officer has not given reasons for levying penalty three times tax liability (maximum penalty). The check-post officer has not indicated any reason as to why the dealer should be mulcted with the maximum penalty. The levy of penalty between 200 to 300 per cent is discretionary. The exercise of discretion to levy maximum penalty shall be supported with reasons. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order is modified, setting aside levy of penalty beyond two times of the tax liability.