JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by G. T. NANAVATI, J. - This reference is made by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, at the instance of M/s. Bhavnagar Chemical Works (1946) Ltd. The Tribunal has raised the following four questions and referred them to this Court for its decision : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the Sales Tax Officer dated May 6, 1978, imposing penalty under section 10A read with section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the contravention relating to the year 1973, was not barred by limitation ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Sales Tax Officer had requisite jurisdiction to impose such penalty even after the initiation and withdrawal of the suo motu revision proceedings by the Assistant Commissioner ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that breach of declarations in form C was committed by using the goods purchased in processing the goods of other parties which were meant for sale by those parties ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was absence of reasonable cause within the meaning of section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, even though use in the job work was made prior to the law being laid down by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Navsari Cotton Silk Mills Ltd. [1976] 37 STC 140 ?" Bhavnagar Chemical Works (1946) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee") is doing business of extracting oil out of oil-cakes by the solvent extraction process and selling the same. During the assessment year 1973, the assessee purchased hexine oil worth Rs. 1,89,134 from outside the State of Gujarat for the purpose of use in the solvent extraction process and by issuing declarations in form C under section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and obtained the benefit of concessional rate of tax under section 8(1)(b) of the Central Act. Out of the hexine oil thus purchased, the assessee had used hexine oil worth Rs. Out of the hexine oil thus purchased, the assessee had used hexine oil worth Rs. 57,817 for the job work done by it for its customers and not for manufacturing goods sold by it. The Sales Tax Officer possibly did not notice this while passing the assessment order on January 20, 1976 and, therefore, did not initiate penal proceedings under section 10(d) of the Central Act. Presumably, on coming to know about it, he issued a notice on April 13, 1978, calling upon the assessee to show cause why penal proceedings should not be taken against it for breach of the recitals of the declarations in form C. The Sales Tax Officer was not satisfied with the reply given by the assessee and held the company guilty of the offence under section 10(d) of the Central Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,208 under section 10A of the Central Act. Against that order, the assessee preferred an appear to the Assistant Commissioner. He did not uphold the plea of the assessee that the assessee had not committed any breach in using hexine oil purchased against the declarations in form C for manufacturing goods on job work basis. He, however, reduced the penalty from Rs. 5,208 to Rs. 4,047. The assessee not satisfied with the order of the Assistant Commissioner, preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the assessee had raised four contentions. It was contended that the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer on May 6, 1978 imposing penalty which related to the appellant's assessment under the Central Act finalised on January 20, 1976, was time barred. It was contended that the Sales Tax Officer had no right or authority to issue show cause notice or initiate penal proceedings as Assistant Commissioner had previously initiated such proceedings and dropped the same. It was contended that the Sales Tax Officer had no right or authority to issue show cause notice or initiate penal proceedings as Assistant Commissioner had previously initiated such proceedings and dropped the same. The third contention raised before the Tribunal was that the assessee cannot be said to have committed any breach of the declarations issued under form C as the expression "use by him in the manikfacture or processing of goods for sale" in clause (b) of section 8(3) of the Central Act and the similar expression in the prescribed form C was wide enough to cover the appellant's use of hexine oil in the manufacture of the goods to be sold by third parties, that is, by the parties for whom it had manufactured the goods on job work basis. The fourth contention was that there was "reasonable excuse" within the meaning of clause (d) of section 10 of the Central Act and, therefore, no penalty could have been imposed under section 10A of the Central Act. The Tribunal did not accept any of the contentions raised by the assessee and dismissed the appeal. The assessee then moved the Tribunal under section 69 of the Act for referring the abovestated four questions to this Court. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the assessee that question No. 3 now will have to be answered in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Assessing Authority-cum-Excise and Taxation Oiricer v. East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1981] 48 STC 239, which has overruled the decision of this Court in Navsari Cotton Silk Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [1976] 37 STC 140, which was relied upon by the Tribunal in rejecting the assessee's contention that it cannot be said to have committed any breach. He further submitted that if this question is answered in favour of the assessee, then it would not be necessary to answer questions Nos. 1, 2 and 4, because, if it is held that the assessee had not committed any breach of the declarations made in form C, then, obviously, the order imposing penalty will have to be set aside even on merits. In East India Cotton Mfg. 1, 2 and 4, because, if it is held that the assessee had not committed any breach of the declarations made in form C, then, obviously, the order imposing penalty will have to be set aside even on merits. In East India Cotton Mfg. Co.'s case [1981] 48 STC 239, the Supreme Court has held that section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act would clearly cover a case where a registered dealer manufactured or processed goods for a third party on a job contract and used in the manufacture or processing of such goods, materials purchased by him against his certificate of registration and the declarations in form C, so long as the manufactured or processed goods were intended for sale by such third party. The expression used by the Legislature as well as the rule-making authority was simply "for use .......... in the manufacture ........ of goods for sale" without any addition of words indicating that the sale must be by any particular individual. The Supreme Court, after referring to the decision of this Court in Navsari Cotton Silk Mills Co.'s case [1976] 37 STC 140, observed that it should be deemed to have been overruled by that decision. In view of the direct decision of the Supreme Court on the point, it will have to be held that the assessee in this case had not committed any breach of the declarations made in form C by using the goods purchased against those forms in processing the goods of other parties, which were meant for sale by those parties. In the result, question No. 3 is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are not answered as it is not necessary to answer them. There shall be no order as to costs in this reference.