JUDGMENT K. C. AGRAWAL, C.J. - This revision has been filed under section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, against the judgment of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, dated 17/20th February, 1987. The assessee, M/s. Sharda Plastics Private Limited, Sadulpur, was a registered dealer within the meaning of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and was engaged in the manufacture and sale of plastic goods. The assessee used to maintain its books of accounts on the basis of calendar year, that is to say, from 1st of January to 31st of December of each year. The controversy in the present case related to the accounting period commencing from 1st January, 1976. The assessee was assessed on the basis of biennial returns that is to say for the accounting period between 1st January, 1973 to 31st December, 1974 one assessment was made and for the accounting period between 1st January, 1975 to 31st December, 1976 another assessment was made. These assessments were made on 20th December, 1976 and 17th January, 1978, respectively. The assessee was a manufacturer and as such was entitled to benefit of section 5CC of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for the purchase of raw materials on the terms and conditions under the aforesaid section. For the entire purchases made in the assessment year, the assessee was given benefit of exemption under section 5CC. The conditions of section 5CC for grant of exemption envisaged that the goods manufactured by the assessee must be sold either within the State or in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. These conditions further implied that if the manufactured goods are not sold as per the condition, but are sold outside the State, then there was a breach of the provisions of section 5CC and the assessee would be liable to penalty under sub-section (2) of section 5CC of the Act. The audit inspection report pointed out that the assessee had not sold all the manufactured goods within the State or in the course of inter-State trade and commerce, but had transferred certain goods to head office at Delhi, which is outside the State and the sale and manufacture of goods had taken place in that State as a result where of the assessee was alleged to have committed breach of section 5CC and as such escaped assessment. On coming to know of the audit objection, the authority issued a composite notice for all the accounting periods relating to the above concerned assessment year to which an objection was filed by the assessee. The assessing authority held that the assessee had transferred manufactured goods worth Rs. 3,28,823.36 to the head office, Delhi and thus, committed a breach of the condition under section 5CC for availing the exemption. In view of this finding, a penalty of Rs. 17,500 was imposed on the assessee. Aggrieved with the levy of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner, which was allowed and the order passed by the assessing authority was set aside. The appellate authority directed for issuance of a fresh notice in respect of each year separately, against which a revision was filed by the assessee before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The appeal was accepted by the Tribunal holding that the limitation prescribed for assessment also applied to penalty proceedings and as the assessment under section 10 was barred by time, therefore, penalty could not have been levied or imposed after the expiry of the period for passing assessment order under section 10. Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the present revision has been preferred. Counsel for the Revenue urged that : (i) the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the limitation prescribed under section 10B of the Act applies to penalty proceedings as well; (ii) on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, levy of penalty by the assessing authority under section 5CC(2) was not barred by time; and (iii) on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal committed an error in deciding the question of limitation by ignoring section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The question that was argued before me by the learned counsel was that penalty could be justifiably levied/imposed under section 10B and as there was no period of limitation for the same, the court could quash the imposition of penalty only when it found the order to have been unjustifiably delayed. The question that was argued before me by the learned counsel was that penalty could be justifiably levied/imposed under section 10B and as there was no period of limitation for the same, the court could quash the imposition of penalty only when it found the order to have been unjustifiably delayed. Shri Rajesh Balia cited a number of decisions given on the income-tax side holding that if there is no limitation provided to meet a contingency as it arose in the present case, assessment order could be made unless it was found that the authorities were unduly wrong in making the same. The question of undue delay has to be decided by taking into account the explanation given by the taxing authority and it the view is that the same has been sufficiently explained, the assessment order could be justified. For the above view, reference was made to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 1356 at page 1386 (S. C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas) and [1980] 46 STC 141 (Raj) (Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan). Neither section 5CC(2) nor section 10B provides for an eventuality to impose penalty in a situation like the present. The Tribunal set aside the penalty on the ground that the assessment on the date of imposition of the penalty had become time-barred and, therefore, the same was also beyond time and could not be enforced. Shri Balia, counsel for the petitioner, urged that even if there was non limitation specifically provided for levy of penalty in a case which is covered by the present facts, the power to impose tax flowing from section 10B could be utilised also for imposition of penalty. I am not prepared to accept this argument. Section 10B deals with assessment and that its language cannot be stretched to take within itself a case of imposition of penalty. Admittedly, no proceedings under section 12 for reopening of assessment had taken place, because the said provision did not apply. Even if it was conceded that there is an adequate explanation for the delay, there could be a reassessment under section 10B and that such an order would be valid and binding. This argument was advanced on the basis of the decision reported in the two cases mentioned above and [1967] 65 ITR 491 (All.) (Ram Kishan Baldeo Prasad v. Commissioner of Income-tax). This argument was advanced on the basis of the decision reported in the two cases mentioned above and [1967] 65 ITR 491 (All.) (Ram Kishan Baldeo Prasad v. Commissioner of Income-tax). Without going into the various contentions raised on behalf of the assessee about non-applicability of the ratio of these cases I may point out that in the instant case there was no explanation for the delay in taking the assessment proceedings challenged in the present case. The audit report was given in 1979, awaiting of which no justification was offered by the department and the present proceedings were started after four years of the receipt of the same by the department and that being so, the present revision has to be decided against the department. The revision is, consequently, dismissed. Petition dismissed.