JUDGMENT N. Kumar J.—The assessee has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the revisional authority who has set side the order of the appellate authority and restored the order passed by a check-post officer. The assessee is a limited company, engaged in the sale of beauty, health, wellness and fashion accessories and cosmetics and other products. It is carrying on the business in Bangalore. It sells its products under the branch as "NEWU". It is having its units in Delhi, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and having few branches in Bangalore itself. They have central warehouse in Manesar in the State of Haryana. The goods are sent to different branches through the central warehouse. As a company is having many branches, it has allotted different local code to each branch for identification. For example for RMZ Infinity code is 1551, for Brigade 1552, etc. While preparing the stock transfer document through SAP system, the respective codes are mentioned as source and destination location. The assessee planned to open its new showroom in RMZ Infinity, Old Madras Road, K.R. Puram, Bangalore. It has also filed the application for issue of branch certificate, which has now been granted. The said premise is taken on lease. However, it was not ready for occupation in the third week of April 2008. The goods vehicle bearing No. HR 61 4699 coming from Haryana was intercepted by the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement 21) on April 16, 2008, when the goods were being unloaded at the godown situated at Jayanagar office. The driver in charge of the goods vehicle produced the following three documents. They are : (1) Transport L R bearing No. 2844 dated April 9, 2008 of M/s. Shriram Express Carriers Pvt. Ltd., Noida. (2) Form VAT D3 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules. (3) Stock transfer summary in Excel sheet. 2. The Commercial Tax Officer on verification doubted the documents and rejected the same and levied penalty to an extent of Rs.5,54,560. Against the said order, an appeal was filed before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). The appellate authority allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the check-post officer. It is thereafter, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes invoked section 64(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 and initiated suo motu revisional proceedings against the assessee. They issued a proposition notice. The assessee filed its counter. The appellate authority allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the check-post officer. It is thereafter, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes invoked section 64(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 and initiated suo motu revisional proceedings against the assessee. They issued a proposition notice. The assessee filed its counter. After hearing the assessee, he set aside the order passed the appellate authority and restored the order passed by the check-post officer. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is before this court. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee assailing the impugned order contended in the first place that this was a case of stock transfer and therefore, the question of payment of penalty does not arise. Secondly, he contended that as the premises at RMZ Infinity, Old Madras Road, was under renovation and it was not ready for occupation, the said goods were being unloaded at Jayanagar office, for which they had already filed an application for certificate, which was subsequently issued and therefore, the check-post officer was in error in holding that it was unloaded at uncertified jurisdictional godown. The observation of the check-post officer that the stock transfer note did not contain the date, number and the particulars, in the facts of the case should not matter as the other documents clearly gave full description of the properties and therefore, the Appellate Commissioner was justified in setting aside the order passed by the check-post officer whereas the revisional authority committed a serious error in setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority on the ground that the same is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The question which really is to be gone into is whether there was any intention on the parties to evade payment of tax and therefore, he submits that the impugned order is unsustainable and requires to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order. 5. On September 1, 2009, the appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether, on the facts or the circumstances of the case, the revisional authority was right in setting aside the appeal order ? Whether on the facts of the circumstances of the case, the revisional authority was right in restoring the penalty order? 5. On September 1, 2009, the appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether, on the facts or the circumstances of the case, the revisional authority was right in setting aside the appeal order ? Whether on the facts of the circumstances of the case, the revisional authority was right in restoring the penalty order? (2) Whether, on the facts or the circumstances of the case, the revisional authority was right in coming to the conclusion that, form VAT D3 is not a relevant document for section 53(2) of the KVAT Act? (3) Whether, on the facts or the circumstances of the case, the revisional authority was right in initiating the proceedings under section 64(1) of the KVAT Act? (4) Whether on the facts or the circumstances of the case, the revisional authority has proved that, the penalty is revenue for the Government? (5) Whether, on the facts of the circumstances of the case, the revisional authority was right in coming to the conclusion that, the men rea is not necessary in levying the penalty under section 53(12) of the KVAT Act? 6. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the point that arises for our consideration is whether the revisional authority was justified in initiating suo motu revisional proceedings and in passing the impugned order. 7. We have looked into the stock transfer note. It is addressed to H & B Stores Ltd., C/o DRS Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Wing 1, Parts VPO Jamalpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. It says that the goods are transferred from RMZ Infinity, the Bay, Old Madras Road, Bangalore. Therefore, the said particular is admittedly incorrect. The goods were transferred from Haryana to Bangalore and not from Bangalore to Haryana. Therefore, the Appellate Commissioner was justified in holding on the question of confusion. But the fact remains that it does not contain the date and number. Admittedly, those goods were not unloaded at RMZ Infinity, Old Madras Road, Bangalore, it was unloaded at No. 721/26, New No. 26/2, 2nd Floor, 38th A Cross, 4th T Block, 18th Main Road, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 041. Therefore, the observations of the check-post officer that the said document cannot be relied upon in the light of the aforesaid facts cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the observations of the check-post officer that the said document cannot be relied upon in the light of the aforesaid facts cannot be found fault with. It is contended that the observation that it is a certified godown is demonstrated by form No. VAT 7, which is produced. That is a certificate issued on March 4, 2009. It says that it is valid from March 1, 2008 until cancelled. The interception was on April 16, 2008. In other words, on April 16, 2008, when the vehicle was intercepted, this certificate had not come into existence. Though the certificate came into existence on March 4, 2009, it says that it is valid from March 1, 2008 and hence, we cannot find fault with the findings of the check-post officer. This aspect has been completely missed by the Appellate Commissioner. It is in these circumstances, as evident from the very documents produced, the check-post officer rightly came to the conclusion. It is also evident that none of the documents contains the date and number. It is also evident that none of the original documents was produced before the check-post officer. Therefore, there was a breach of mandatory provisions of section 53(2) of the Act, which attracts penalty. In that view of the matter, the revisional authority was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner, which on the face of it is perverse and restoring the order passed by the check-post officer, which was supported by the legal documents, which were produced before him. Hence, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for. The substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The appeal is dismissed.