JUDGMENT U. L. BHAT, C.J. - This following question has been referred to this Court by the Appellate Tribunal, Board of Revenue, under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short "the Act") at the instance of the assessee : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the applicability of the provisions of section 17 of the Act and in confirming the levy of penalty thereunder ?" 2. The dispute relates to the April 1, 1969 to March 31, 1970. The assessee submitted quarterly returns beyond the respective due dates. Inevitably, he did not deposit the tax also on the due dates. He, therefore, approached the Commissioner for relief under section 22(4-A) of the Act. The Commissioner gave further time and also the benefit of instalments to the assessee. Admittedly the assessee deposited the tax complying with the conditions imposed by the Commissioner. Nevertheless, at the time of completing the assessment the assessing officer imposed penalty under section 17(3)(b)(ii) of the Act in regard to 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters. Penalty of Rs. 8,000 was imposed in connection with the delay in deposing the tax in respect of second return and a consolidated penalty of Rs. 57,000 was imposed in connection with the delay in depositing the tax in respect of 3rd and 4th quarters. In appeal, the former was reduced from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 4,000 and the latter was reduced from Rs. 57,000 to Rs. 29,000. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal but at his instance made this reference. 3. Learned Government Advocate Shri Surjeet Singh submitted that no question of law arises for consideration in this case relying on the decision in Bhilari Motors v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1986] 62 STC 212 (MP); (1986) 19 VKN 230. That was a case of undisputed delay in submitting returns and depositing tax. On facts proved, the court held that no question of law arose for consideration. In the present case no penalty has been imposed on account of delay in submitting returns. Penalty has been imposed only on account of delay in depositing the tax due in respect of returns for quarters 2 to 4. Notwithstanding that, the tax has been paid within the time-limit and subject to the conditions imposed by the Commissioner under section 22(4-A) of the Act. Penalty has been imposed only on account of delay in depositing the tax due in respect of returns for quarters 2 to 4. Notwithstanding that, the tax has been paid within the time-limit and subject to the conditions imposed by the Commissioner under section 22(4-A) of the Act. Therefore, the decision relied on is of no assistance in this case. Section 17(3)(b)(ii) reads thus : "17(1) ............... (2) .................. (3) If - (a) .................. (b) a registered dealer fails without sufficient cause to pay the amount of tax in the manner prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 22 or to furnish his return under sub-section (1) or revised return under sub-section (2) for any period in the manner and by the date prescribed thereunder or while furnishing the return fails to furnish along with the return, the proof of payment as required by sub-section (1-A); or (c) ................. the Commissioner may, after giving such dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, direct him to pay, by way of penalty - (i) ................. (ii) in the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to the amount of tax, if any, payable by him a sum equal to one per cent of the tax for every month or part thereof for the first six months and 1.5 per cent for the next six months of the first year during which the default continued and thereafter 2 per cent of the tax for every month or part thereof during which the default continued but not exceeding in aggregate 25 per cent of the tax which may be assessed on him under section 18 and where no tax is payable a sum not exceeding five hundred rupees." 4. The sine qua non for imposition of penalty under the above provision is the failure to do the prescribed thing "without sufficient cause". It is no doubt true that the assessee failed to deposit the tax along with the return as prescribed by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, but the deposited the tax subject to the time-limit and conditions imposed the tax subject to the time-limit and conditions imposed by the Commissioner under section 22(4-A). 5. Section 22 deals with payment and recovery of tax and other dues under the Act. 5. Section 22 deals with payment and recovery of tax and other dues under the Act. Sub-section (1) states that the tax payable for each year shall be paid in the manner hereinafter provided at such intervals as may be prescribed. It is unnecessary for us to go into the details of the modes and the time-limits prescribed. Sub-section (4-A) of section 22 reads thus : "(4-A) If for any reason, a dealer is unable to pay the tax assessed or the penalty imposed on him under this Act, within the time specified thereof in the notice of demand, he may apply to the Commissioner in writing to grant him more time for payment of such amount or to permit him to pay such amount in instalments. Subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, the Commissioner may grant further time to such dealer or allow him to pay such amounts in instalments on such conditions as he may deem fit to impose. Where any extension of time or permission to pay by instalments is granted, the dealer shall be liable to pay interest on such amounts from the last date on which the tax and/or penalty was due to be paid in accordance with such notice of demand. The interest shall be paid at 12 per cent per annum for the first three months commencing from such last date and at 15 per cent per annum for the period thereafter." The above provision vests power in the Commissioner to give relief in appropriate cases in the matter of a tax assessed or the penalty imposed. A dealer unable to pay the same may apply to the Commissioner in writing to grant him more time for payment of the amount or to permit him to pay in instalments. The Commissioner may grant further time or allow the assessee to pay in instalments on such conditions as he deemed fit. Where extension of time or permission to pay in instalments is granted, the dealer is liable to pay interest on such amounts as contemplated in the above provision and at the rates as provided therein. The Commissioner who exercises the jurisdiction under sub-section (4-A) is to pass order on a consideration of the totality of the circumstances placed before him. He cannot pass an order arbitrarily or whimsically. The Commissioner who exercises the jurisdiction under sub-section (4-A) is to pass order on a consideration of the totality of the circumstances placed before him. He cannot pass an order arbitrarily or whimsically. The relief that he gives is based on the view he takes regarding inability of the dealer to make the payment. Obviously, he cannot give relief in cases where he is not satisfied about inability to make the payment. The satisfaction of the Commissioner under sub-section (4-A) of section 22 has certainly a bearing on the decision to be arrived at in regard to the existence of "sufficient cause" as contemplated under section 17(3). The statutory authority and the Appellate Tribunal have committed a grievous error of law in taking the view that the order passed under section 22(4-A) has little bearing on the question of liability for penalty under section 17(3). In the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty could not have been imposed. 6. In the result, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs. 7. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Additional Registrar and seal of the High Court will be transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal. Reference answered in the negative.