Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is the reference made by the Board of Revenue under Section 44 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The following terms of the reference are as under: "whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the resale of raw material purchased against declaration under Notification No. A-3-41-81 (25)-V-ST, dated 1-5-1982 to another unit otherwise be eligible for purchase of material under the same notification is not liable to tax or penalty under Section 14-A of the Act or Section 8 of the Entry tax Act. " ( 2. ) BEFORE appreciating the terms of the reference it would be appropriate to ascertain the facts. The respondent/assessee was dealer and is a private company who is manufacturing soya oil and extracts. The dispute relates to the period from 1-7-1983 to 30th June, 1984. The assessee/dealer was granted exemption from payment of Sales Tax and Entry Tax on raw material to the extent of Rs. 1,13,84,643/ -. During this period the assessee/dealer has sold the raw material, i. e. , soyabean to other manufacturers as raw material for the value of Rs. 27,66,632/ -. The assessee was required to submit a declaration under section 14-A of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for brevity "act" ). 1,13,84,643/ -. During this period the assessee/dealer has sold the raw material, i. e. , soyabean to other manufacturers as raw material for the value of Rs. 27,66,632/ -. The assessee was required to submit a declaration under section 14-A of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for brevity "act" ). Section 14-A imposes a liability on a dealer purchasing exempted goods and according to this Section notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14, where any condition of exemption imposed under Section 12 requires that the registered dealer purchasing the goods exempted in whole or in part from the payment of tax under the Act, shall furnish a declaration or certificate to the effect that (a) the goods purchased shall be used by him for a specific purpose and within a specified period, or (b) the goods purchased shall be disposed of by him in a specified manner and within a specified time and if contrary to such declaration or certificate if the dealer does not use the goods for the specified purpose or within the specified time or does not use the goods in the specified manner or within the specified time he shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase price of such goods at the full rate mentioned in column (3) of Schedule II and penalty equal to 25% of the amount of tax payable under the Act. ( 3. ) THE facts are admitted to the extent that the dealer/assessee had sold the soya oil to another manufacturer as raw material valued at rs. 27,66,632/ -. He was imposed tax and penalty as the goods were sold against the declarations and the Purchase Tax at full rate + full penalty by holding that he had sold soyabean weighing 4430. 084 Mt. Tones and the purchase value was estimated at Rs. 24,04,680/- and accordingly the penalty of Rs. 18,035/- was also imposed under the Entry Tax Act and directed to pay Sales Tax valued at rs. 96,187. 20 together with the penalty of Rs. 24,046. 75 by the Assessing officer. ( 4. ) THE assessee preferred first appeal before the Appellate Deputy commissioner who confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Authority. The assessee again preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. 96,187. 20 together with the penalty of Rs. 24,046. 75 by the Assessing officer. ( 4. ) THE assessee preferred first appeal before the Appellate Deputy commissioner who confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Authority. The assessee again preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The board of Revenue by its order dated 30th October, 1990 held that admittedly the goods were exempted goods in view of the Notification No. A-3-41-81 (25)-V-ST, dated 1-5-1982 and the aforesaid goods were sold to another manufacturer who was also eligible for the exemption, therefore, such a resale would not attract the penalty in view of the proviso of Section 6 (3) of the Act and accordingly the Board of Revenue held that the order passed by the assessing Officer under Section 19 (1) of the Act and the levy of penalty under section 14-A, is not permissible. ( 5. ) ON the basis of the aforesaid factual back drop of the facts the present reference has been made to this Court. ( 6. ) AS is manifest, there is no dispute about the facts that the respondent/assessee had resold the same to the new unit who was also entitled to claim the exemption under the notification as aforesaid. The limited question which is to be answered is whether the Board of Revenue is justified in quashing the imposition of the tax as well as the penalty under Section 14-A of the Act and section 8 of the Entry Tax Act. The reason which has been given by the Second appellate Authority is that as the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the act permits such a resale of the goods no tax and penalty shall be imposed on such a resale and hence, the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority were not justified to impose Tax and the penalty. ( 7. ( 7. ) FOR the reference it would be appropriate to refer to Section 6 (3)of the Act, which reads as under: (3) Where any goods purchased by a registered dealer under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) are used by him in violation of the restrictions and conditions prescribed under the said sub-section such registered dealer shall be liable to pay, in such manner as may be prescribed, tax or penalty, as the case may be, as the rate equal to the difference of the full rate of tax under sub-section (1) and the concessional rate of tax under sub-section (2), respect of such goods: provided that no tax or penalty shall be imposed on a registered dealer where any goods purchase for use by him a raw material or incidental goods under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) are sold by him subject to such restrictions or conditions as may be prescribed, to another registered dealer who is a manufacturer of tax free or exempted goods. ( 8. ) THE reason ascribed given by the Board of Revenue is to be tested on the anvil of said provision. In earlier paragraph we have already referred to section 14-A of the Act which creates liability on the dealer purchasing the exempted goods. According to this Section a dealer has to submit a declaration or a certificate to the effect that the exempted goods purchased by him shall be used by him for a specified purpose within a specified time or the goods purchased shall be disposed of by him in specified manner or within a specified time. ( 9. ) IN the present case, there is no dispute that the dealer has given a declaration at the time of purchase that the goods shall be used by him. The dealer is a limited company which is manufacturing soya oil and other extracts. Thus according to the declaration which the dealer had given under Section 14-A with regard to the exempted goods that he would use the exempted goods purchased by him, then the dealer as such had not paid the tax at the time of purchase of such exempted goods. Thus according to the declaration which the dealer had given under Section 14-A with regard to the exempted goods that he would use the exempted goods purchased by him, then the dealer as such had not paid the tax at the time of purchase of such exempted goods. Subsequently, at the time of assessment the assessing Authority found that the dealer in contravention to his own declaration had resold such exempted goods to the another unit which had also sold to another unit that was entitled to the exemption from paying the tax. Thus, it is clear that intention of Section 14-A that if the dealer has acted in contravention to his own declaration and acted contrary to such declaration then the dealer as such would be liable to pay full tax including the penalty as referred thereto. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the dealer had given a declaration that exempted goods purchased by him shall be used by him but he had not used himself but had resold to the another unit. Thus, the question arises for the consideration is whether in an eventuality where the dealer acting in contravention to his own declaration does not use the exempted goods for himself but such exempted goods are re-sold would be covered by the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act. ( 10. ) THE plain reading of proviso to Section 6 (3) of the Act only states that if a dealer is entitled for exemption from payment of tax and the exempted goods sold by him then there is no liability to pay the tax on penalty, if the goods are sold "subject to such restrictions or conditions as may be prescribed to another registered dealer who is the manufacturer of tax free or exempted goods or who holds a recognition certificate under Section 16-C for the purposes so specified in the said clauses. This is the plain meaning of the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 6. But this proviso does not indicate that where the registered dealer has resold the same in contravention to the declaration which is given by him that the material shall be used by him then the consequences of resulting in such a resale of goods against the declaration are not covered by the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act. If the reasons given by the board of Revenue are accepted then Section 14-A shall become redundant. ( 11. ) IN view of the plain reading of the proviso we are of the considered view that the Board of Revenue was not justified in holding that the facts and circumstances of the case are covered by the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Act and there is no liability to pay full tax and penalty. ( 12. ) IN view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the reference has to be answered in favour of the Revenue by holding that since the respondent being a dealer and the assessee has acted in contravention to his own declaration which he had submitted under Section 14-A for use of the exempted goods by himself by reselling the goods to another dealer has made himself liable under Section 14-A of the Act for full Tax and penalty. ( 13. ) IN the result the reference is answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.