ANSHUMAN SINGH, J. - (1.) This revision under section 11 (1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the assessee against the judgment dated 14th March, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bareilly. In the assessment year 1979-80 the assessee was doing the manufacturing business of rice and rice bran from paddy. The books of account of the assessee were rejected by the Sales Tax Officer on the ground of adverse materials alleged to have been found at the time of survey. Having failed in first appeal the assessee went up in second appeal before the Tribunal which too met the same fate. I have heard Sri K. M. L. Hajela, learned counsel for the assessee, and the learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. Mr. Hajela urged that since the assessee was holding recognition certificate under section 4-B of the Act, no tax could be levied on the turnover of purchase of paddy and the authorities committed an error in ignoring the recognition certification. The learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue on the contrary submitted that since the assessee did not fulfil the conditions prescribed under section 4-B of the Act it was no entitled to the benefit of Notification No. S. T. II-5496 dated 31st August, 1977. Section 4-B (2) provides that "a dealer who requires any goods referred to in sub-section (1) for use as raw material for the purposes of manufacture in the State of Uttar Pradesh of any notified goods, and such notified goods, are intended to be sold by him in the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of India, may apply within such period, and in such form and manner, as may be prescribed, to the assessing authority for the grant of a recognition certificate in respect thereof and if the applicant satisfies such requirements and conditions as may be prescribed, the assessing authority shall grant to the dealer in respect of such goods a recognition certificate in such form and subject to such condition as may be prescribed". It is not disputed that the assessee applied for grant of a recognition certificate under section 4-B (2) of the Act and it was granted the same. A reading of section 4-B (2) shows that the assessing authority has to be satisfied before grant of a recognition certificate. Whether the assessee fulfils the conditions or not is a matter to be enquired into by the assessing authority before the grant of such a certificate and once a recognition certificate is issued to a dealer, in my opinion, he is entitled to the benefit permissible under the said certificate of notified goods. The learned Chief Standing Counsel has urged that since the assessee did not fulfil the conditions prescribed under section 4-B, it was not entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid notification dated 31st August, 1977, and in support of his contention he invited my attention to the provisions of section 3-B of the Act and contended that since the assessee issued a false declaration the authorities were justified in levying tax on the assessee. In my opinion the provisions of section 3-B cannot be attracted in the instant case. The significant words used in section 3-B are "who issues a false or wrong certificate or declaration, prescribed under any provisions of this Act or the Rules framed thereunder, to another person by reason of which a tax leviable under this Act on the transaction of purchase or sale ceases to be leviable". In the case in hand it cannot be said that the assessee issued a false or wrong certificate inasmuch as he was holding a recognition certificate under section 4-B. It cannot also be said to have made a false declaration as the fact of holding of a recognition certification has not been disputed by the Revenue. Apart from this section 3-B is not a charging section but is a penal section. Section 3-B authorises the authorities under the Act to initiate penal proceedings besides the provisions of sections 14 and 15-A of the Act. Therefore, if the assessee has committed breach of conditions of the recognition certificate issued to it under section 4-B, in my opinion the authorities cannot levy tax under section 3-B. The legislature has provided for initiation of proceedings against a dealer, who commits breach of the conditions of the recognition certificate, under section 4-B (4) and (6 ). In case the assessee had contravened the conditions of the recognition certificate, it was open to the authorities to have initiated proceedings under sub-clauses (4) and (6) of section 4-B, but the same cannot disentitle the assessee from taking the benefit of section 4-B (1) (a) of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Raj Kumar Sharawan Kumar Oil and Rice Mills, Lucknow v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. [1983] 53 STC 161; 1983 ATJ 218 wherein it has been held that if an assessee, who is holding a recognition certificate under section 4-B, commits a breach of the conditions of the recognition certificate, the consequences would be provided under the relevant provisions of the law and the said breach cannot disentitle the assessee from taking the benefit of section 4-B (1) (a) of the Act in assessment proceedings. I find myself in full agreement with the aforesaid decision of this Court. No other point has been pressed for consideration. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is directed to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of section 11 (8) of the Act. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned. Petition allowed. .;