JUDGMENT U. L. BHAT, C.J. - This is a reference under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act"), by the Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee. The following question has been referred : "Whether the delay in submission of revised returns under the provisions of section 17(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (the said provisions being not mandatory one but of optional nature) makes him liable for penalty under sub-section (3) of section 17 in respect of the revised returns pertaining to the period prior to September 1, 1976 (it is by amendment Act No. 48 of 1976) that the section 17(3)(b) has been amended with effect from September 1, 1976 only (without any retrospective effect) so as to make failure to furnish revised return under sub-section (2) of section 17, being liable for penalty under section 17(3) ?" 2. The matter relates to the period November 10, 1969 to October 30, 1970. The assessee originally submitted returns except regarding the third quarter, in time. He submitted revised return beyond time namely, on September 1, 1975. 3. Section 17 of the Act deals with returns. We will refer presently to the provisions of the section as they stood at the relevant time. Sub-section (1) requires every registered dealer to furnish returns in such form, for such period, by such dates and to such authority as may be prescribed. According to sub-section (2), if any dealer discovers any omission, error or wrong statement in any return furnished by him under sub-section (1), he may furnish a revised return in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time. The words "and within the prescribed time" were inserted by the M.P. Act No. 18 of 1960 with effect from July 1, 1960. 4. Revised return was filed beyond time and could not be treated as a valid revised return. Nevertheless, after issuing appropriate notice and giving an opportunity to the assessee, the assessing authority imposed penalty under section 17(3) of the Act for belated filing of revised return. This was confirmed in appeal and further appeal. In the circumstances referred to above, the only option left for the assessing officer was to ignore the revised return, make best judgment assessment and consider imposition of penalty under section 43 of the Act and section 17(3) could not have been invoked. This was confirmed in appeal and further appeal. In the circumstances referred to above, the only option left for the assessing officer was to ignore the revised return, make best judgment assessment and consider imposition of penalty under section 43 of the Act and section 17(3) could not have been invoked. 5. Shri Seth, learned Government Advocate, placed reliance on the decision in National Garage v. President, Board of Revenue, M.P. (1974) JLJ 364; (1974) 7 VKN 353. This decision was considered by us in the common order passed in M.P. Nos. 290 of 1984 and 291 of 1984 [Shaw Leiner Limited v. Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1995] 96 STC 6 (MP)]. National Garage case (1974) JLJ 364 related to the assessment year 1960. Returns filed initially was not correct. Revised return was filed before completion of assessment. As rule 19 then stood, the assessee had a right to file revised return without any limitation of time. It was held that when the assessee submitted revised return, he was in effect, withdrawing the original return and, therefore, the question of accepting or rejecting the original return did not arise and on that basis, penalty could not be imposed under section 43. The court, however, observed that the assessing officer could have imposed penalty under section 17(3) without noticing that under section 17(3) and rule 19, as they then stood, there was no limitation of time for filing revised return. As the rule then stood, penalty under section 17(3) also could not have been levied, but this was not noticed in National Garage case (1974) JLJ 364 but was noticed in Shaw Leiner's case [1995] 96 STC 6 (MP). Rule 19 was amended with effect from January 21, 1961. 6. In the present case, the law applicable required revised return to be filed within the prescribed time and it was filed after a lapse of 4 years. Section 17(3) could not have any application to the present case in relation to the revised return, since in the eyes of law, there was no revised return. The assessing officer did not attempt to impose penalty on account of belated filing of original return. 7. The question of law has not been correctly framed by the Appellate Tribunal. Section 17(3) could not have any application to the present case in relation to the revised return, since in the eyes of law, there was no revised return. The assessing officer did not attempt to impose penalty on account of belated filing of original return. 7. The question of law has not been correctly framed by the Appellate Tribunal. The correct question would be : "Whether delay in submission of revised return in violation of time prescribed by the rule would entail levy of penalty under section 17(3) of the Act ?" 8. The question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly. 9. A copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court be transmitted to the Tribunal. No order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.