General penal provision may apply where specific penalty conditions are not met; revision dismissed in sales tax dispute.

The court held that proceedings under section 7A were not barred merely because section 5B(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 existed, since the specific penalty contingencies in section 5B(2) were not attracted on the facts. The objection that the general penal provision could not be invoked was rejected as a misconception. Revisional interference was also declined because the challenge rested on the petitioner's lack of entitlement to issue Form G for cement on the basis of the G2 certificate. The revision was dismissed at the admission stage, leaving the penalty proceedings undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings under section 7A were barred by section 5B(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and whether interference in revision was warranted.

Analysis: Section 5B(2) deals with specific contingencies of penalty arising from particular breaches connected with declarations for concessional purchase of goods. The case did not fall within those contingencies, and the objection that section 7A could not be invoked merely because section 5B(2) existed was rejected as a misconception. The order under challenge was found to rest on the petitioner's lack of entitlement to issue form G for cement on the basis of the G2 certificate, and the court declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction in the factual setting presented.

Conclusion: The challenge to the invocation of section 7A failed, and the court refused interference.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed at the admission stage, leaving the penalty proceedings undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: The existence of a specific penalty provision does not by itself exclude the operation of a general penal provision where the statutory preconditions for the specific provision are not attracted.

---