OM PRAKASH, J. - (1.) This revision is directed by the assessee against the Tribunal's order dated 25th July, 1987. The assessee is a manufacturer of rice from paddy. The assessee under the recognition certificate under section 4-B, purchased paddy for manufacture of rice, which was wholly exempted from tax, Sub-section (6) of section 4-B says that where a dealer in contravention of the terms and conditions laid down in sub-section (2) sells or otherwise disposes of the notified goods or the raw materials, of which he has been granted such certificate, he shall be liable to pay as penalty such amount as the assessing officer may fix, which shall be not less than the amount of tax that would have been payable under the provisions of this Act on the sale of such notified goods. Sub-section (2) so far as relevant for the purposes of this case states that a dealer who requires any goods for use as raw materials for the purposes of manufacture in the State of Uttar Pradesh of any notified goods and such notified goods are entitled to be sold by him in the State or in the course of inter-State trade, may be granted a recognition certificate provided certain conditions are satisfied. It is, therefore, clear that certificate will be issued only to those dealers, who intended to sell the notified goods in State or in the course of inter-State trade, Admittedly, in the case in hand there was contravention of the provision of section 4-B, inasmuch as consignment sales had been made and, therefore, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and vide order dated 29th July, 1985, the assessing officer levied the penalty equivalent to the tax payable on purchase price. Later, the assessing officer took the view that there was a mistake apparent on the record in levying the penalty equivalent to the tax payable on purchase price, inasmuch as under sub-section (6) of section 4-B penalty shall not be less than the amount of tax payable on the sales of notified goods. He eventually levied the penalty equivalent to the amount of tax payable on sales of the notified goods. The assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), who was of the view that there was no mistake apparent from the record and that the order under section 22 was based on change of opinion. He, therefore, cancelled the order passed under section 22. Then the Revenue carried the dispute to the Tribunal, which reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and restored the order of the assessing officer. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. The learned counsel for the assessee drew my attention to the circular No. 85 dated 10th November, 1982, which gives two options. The first option is that while levying penalty under sub-section (6) of section 4-B, the quantum of penalty will be equivalent to the purchase tax avoided on the purchases. During the proceedings under section 22, the assessee relied on the said during the proceedings under section 22, the assessee relied on the said circular. The question is whether in view of the circular the point whether the basis for levying penalty is the purchase tax or sales tax is debatable or not. Learned Standing Counsel urges that the circular is dated 10th November, 1982, and is, therefore, not applicable to assessment year 1981-82. The question whether the said circular is applicable to the pending matters or not is itself debatable. Therefore, be quantification of penalty under sub-section (6) has become debatable in view of the aforesaid circular, which was specifically relied on by the assessee before the assessing officer under the proceedings initiated under section 22. On these facts no action be taken under section 22, which takes within its ambit only the mistake apparent from record. In the result, the revision is allowed and the order passed under section 22 is quashed. No order as to costs. Revision petition allowed. .;