JUDGMENT Ravi Malimath :- This appeal is by the assessee being aggrieved by the order of the revisional authority restoring the penalty imposed on the assessee. The assessee is a dealer in travelling bags and suit cases. The goods vehicle carrying the commodities was intercepted on June 25, 2007, when the goods were being unloaded at the assessee's place. The person in-charge of the goods vehicle had tendered the invoice issued by M/s. Avon Overseas, Kalyani, in favour of the appellant for having effected sales valued at Rs. 5,26,036. The respondent noticed that the said documents has not been tendered at the first entry check-post and held that there was an intention to avoid the tax. Accordingly, a penalty was imposed on the assessee. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty. Thereafter, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes initiated suo motu revision against the assessee. By the impugned order, the order of the appellate authority was set aside and the order of penalty was restored. Hence the present appeal by the assessee. By the order dated August 20, 2009, the appeal was admitted. The questions of law raised for consideration in the appeal memo is as follows : "1. The CTO justified in passing the impugned order held before the first appellate authority since there is absolutely no proper application of mind to the documents tendered wherein he has check signed and sealed but has given the wrong finding that invoice was not get sealed of the check-post even though the vehicle was reported to the first check-post of the State voluntarily as required under provision of section 53(2)(c) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The order of the CTO (INT) 21 No. CTO/INT-21/KBK/K-62/07-08 dated June 25, 2007 marked as annexure C. The first appellate authority has allowed the appeal with due and proper application of mind on the clear position of law. He is for the Government revenue who holding that there was no attempt to evade following the law laid down by the Division Bench of this honourable High Court in the case of Khemka Plywood, Bangalore v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, South Zone 2, Bangalore. The order of the first appellate authority passed in No. VAT. AP. He is for the Government revenue who holding that there was no attempt to evade following the law laid down by the Division Bench of this honourable High Court in the case of Khemka Plywood, Bangalore v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, South Zone 2, Bangalore. The order of the first appellate authority passed in No. VAT. AP. No. 407/07-08 dated November 26, 2008 is marked as annexure B. Whether or not the revisional authority is justified in initiating the revision proceedings under section 64(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 in respect of the impugned levy of penalty." The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. He contends that there was no intention to avoid the tax due to the State. Hence, the imposition of penalty is bad in law. He contends that it is for the State to show the loss of revenue to the State. Hence, the revisional power could not be exercised. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgment in the case of Khemka Plyland v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone II, Bangalore reported in [2003] 129 STC 321 (Karn); [2001] 51 KLJ 26 to contend that when the check-post authorities have not scrutinized the documents, the assessee cannot be found fault with. Sri Shivayogiswamy, AGA, defends the impugned order. He submits that the vehicle in question which has entered the State of Karnataka should have produced the documents to the check-post authorities in terms of section 53(2) of the Act and a failure to do so, therefore, attracts penalty in terms of section 53(12) of the KVAT Act. Heard counsels and examined the records. It is an admitted fact that when the vehicle entered the State of Karnataka, no entry in any check-post has been made. The vehicle has entered the premises of the assessee and only when the unloading of the goods were taking place that it was intercepted and the enquiry revealed the violation of section 53(2)(d). Hence, it is apparent that there is a clear violation of the provisions of section 53(2), which attracts a penalty under section 53(2)(d). Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of penalty. The citation relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has no application to the facts on hand. Hence, it is apparent that there is a clear violation of the provisions of section 53(2), which attracts a penalty under section 53(2)(d). Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of penalty. The citation relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has no application to the facts on hand. In the said case, the documents were produced before the check-post authorities. However, the check-post authorities did not consider the same. It was a case of non-scrutiny of the documents produced. In the instant case, the facts and circumstances are otherwise. It is not the case of the appellant that he has tendered the documents and the authorities did not verify the same. On the other hand, he contends that it was the duty of the check-post authorities to collect the said documents. We are unable to accept the contention and the reasons advanced. In terms of section 53(2)(d), on entering the State limits, the assessee shall report at the first situated check-post or barrier. Therefore, it is the burden cast on the assessee and it is not the responsibility of the authorities. Hence, the assessee has failed to comply with the burden of reporting at the first situated check-post on entering the State. There has been a clear violation of section 53(2) of the Act. Consequently, penalty under section 53(2)(d) automatically stands attracted. In the instant case, the penalty levied is due to the violation of law and hence, the revisional authority has rightly passed the impugned order. We do not find any error in the impugned order that calls for any interference. Consequently, the questions of law raised in this appeal are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of the merits, is dismissed.