JUDGMENT V. K. SINGHAL, J. - Both the above revisions filed under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, are disposed of by one common order since the questions involved are common. The first submission of Mr. Bhojwani is that the assessee has purchased tax paid wheat which was converted into fine flour (maida). In accordance with the decision of this Court in the assessee's case, it has been held that maida is different than wheat and tax is leviable thereon. Mr. Bhojwani has contended that if it is considered that the conversion of wheat into fine flour is a process of manufacture and a different commodity is manufactured therefrom, then the petitioner has to be given the benefit of concessional rate of tax under section 5C of the Act. This Court has already examined this matter in the assessee's own case in Revision Petition No. 3 of 1990 decided on November 26, 1991 (Assam Roller Flour Mills v. Commercial Taxes Officer), wherein after taking into consideration the provisions of section 5A as substituted by Act No. 8 of 1990, which was retrospective in nature, it was held that the assessee is entitled to claim the set-off of the excess amount of tax paid by him on his purchases. In that case, the order of the Tribunal was quashed and the assessing authority was directed to verify the claim of the assessee in terms of section 5C(1) and the second proviso to section 5A(2) and give relief by way of set-off of the excess amount of the tax paid by the assessee on the purchase price. Similar relief is given to the petitioner by sending the matter back to the assessing authority to give necessary relief in accordance with the said decision. Another question which has been raised by Mr. Bhojwani is that penalty under section 16(1)(e) could not have been levied. In this case, the provisional assessment under section 7B of the Act was framed, in which the penalty under section 16(1)(e) was levied. The said penalty was upheld in the second appeal and the revision preferred by him. When the fresh proceedings were taken under section 10 of the Act, the provisional assessment order was merged in the final assessment order including the order of penalty. The said penalty was upheld in the second appeal and the revision preferred by him. When the fresh proceedings were taken under section 10 of the Act, the provisional assessment order was merged in the final assessment order including the order of penalty. The levy of penalty was challenged before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner has not committed any offence and in the proceedings under section 10 of the Act, he is entitled to challenge the levy of penalty again. The Sales Tax Tribunal came to the conclusion that once a decision has been given by the Board of Revenue in revision, then the assessing authority has no jurisdiction to act contrary to the decision of the revising authority. Reliance was placed before the Sales Tax Tribunal on the decision in Vimal Kumar Padam Kumar v. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer 1982 Tax World 321, wherein it was held that the penalty imposed at the stage of provisional assessment can be revised at the time of regular assessment without recourse to the provisions contained under section 12 or 17. It was further held in that case that the penalty imposed was part of the assessment, could be challenged in appeal against the final order although no appeal had been filed against the earlier penalty order passed under section 7B. The earlier penalty order must be treated to be only provisional and not final. In the present case, since an appeal was preferred and revision was also preferred against the order for levy of penalty and the penalty was confirmed, the Sales Tax Tribunal was of the view that the assessing authority was bound in the proceedings under section 10 to follow the decision of the revising authority given under section 7-B of the Act and, therefore, it was held that the penalty levied under section 16(1)(e) cannot be challenged and considered second time in the proceedings under section 10 of the Act. The provisions of section 7B of the Act are of summary nature. The assessing authority may determine at any time and for any period the taxable turnover of a dealer who has evaded or avoided the tax to the best of his judgment. The provisions of section 7B of the Act are of summary nature. The assessing authority may determine at any time and for any period the taxable turnover of a dealer who has evaded or avoided the tax to the best of his judgment. Though the provision contemplates that the dealer has to be given reasonable opportunity of being heard, but still the proceedings do not acquire finality as has been contemplated under section 10 of the Act. Section 10 contemplates after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce and such other evidence as the assessing authority may require on specific point, the assessment could be made. There may be instances where assessment under section 7B has been made on a particular turnover as the assessee has failed to produce the evidence or documents at that time. The right of the assessee to produce any evidence or additional evidence than that produced in the proceedings under section 7B is not curtailed and the assessee may produce such further evidence as he thinks proper to satisfy the assessing authority that there is no evasion or avoidance of tax. Similarly, the assessing authority on enquiry may come to the conclusion that the provisional assessment made under section 7B is not on correct facts and figures and may even enhance tax liability on the basis of further information or evidence which may be received by the assessing authority. The very object of provisional assessment is the immediate realisation of tax, which is due to the Government and has not been paid by evading or avoiding the same. The said assessment is made subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 7 of the Act, which contemplates that payment made under section 7B is also provisional subject to necessary adjustments in pursuance of the final assessment of tax for any year under section 10. Thus the contingency at the time of final assessment could not be anticipated in the proceedings under section 7B. It was in this light that the larger Bench of the Board of Revenue has observed in the case of Vimal Kumar Padam Kumar 1978 Tax world 321 that the penalty imposed can be challenged in appeal against the final order, although no appeal has been filed against the earlier penalty order passed under section 7B. It was in this light that the larger Bench of the Board of Revenue has observed in the case of Vimal Kumar Padam Kumar 1978 Tax world 321 that the penalty imposed can be challenged in appeal against the final order, although no appeal has been filed against the earlier penalty order passed under section 7B. The Board of Revenue has observed that the earlier penalty order must be treated to be only provisional and not final. These observations of the Board of Revenue are not born-out from the language of the section or the scheme of the Act. The orders passed under section 16 of the Act are final. The finality has been given to the order passed by the assessing authority under section 19 of the Act unless such orders are challenged in appeal or revision. Sub-section (4) of section 13 of the Act provides that every order passed in appeal under this section shall be subject to the powers of revision conferred by section 14 and any reference made to the High Court under section 15 be final (now the second appeal lies to the Tribunal and revision to the High Court). Thus the order passed under section 16 are final and cannot be considered to be provisional. As explained above, the orders passed under section 7B are not final and are subject to the assessment being made under section 10 and thus the nature of the proceedings of the provisional assessment under section 7B and penalty under section 16 stand on a different footing. The observations of the Board of Revenue that when penalty is levied at the stage of provisional assessment, it can be revised at the time of assessment without recourse to the provisions contained in section 12 or 17 is contrary to the scheme of the Act itself. The Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal has observed that levy of penalty under section 16(1)(e) in the proceedings under section 7B of the Act, which was upheld by the Board of Revenue in the proceedings under section 14 of the Act cannot be allowed to be challenged. Therefore, it is correct interpretation of law that the penalty orders are not provisional but are final. Therefore, it is correct interpretation of law that the penalty orders are not provisional but are final. The proper course for the assessee was to challenge the order of the Board of Revenue in the reference proceedings under section 15 of the Act and since the assessee has failed to take recourse of the remedy provided under the Act, it would not authorise him to challenge the order of penalty again on the same facts. I may also mention that limitation has been provided now for levy of penalty and therefore, the Legislature has contemplated that the penalty could be levied only within such period as has been specified in section 16B. A question may arise on the basis of the interpretation of the provisions of the Act with regard to the right of the assessee to challenge the penalty proceedings under section 16 again in the order passed under section 10, as to whether the penalty could be levied in the proceedings under section 7B. Since this question has not been raised before the Tribunal nor any question has been framed on that point, no decision is given in this case on that point. In the result, the revisions are partly allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.