JUDGMENT This is a reference under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act. 1958, at the instance of the Revenue and the following question of law has been referred by the Board of Revenue for answer by this Court : "Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in setting aside the remand order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner as unjustified and improper, while the case was remanded by the first appellate authority for recalculation and reimposition of penalty under proper provisions of section 17(3)(b) instead of section 17(3)(c)(ii) ?" 2. The assessee is a registered dealer under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act"). It was assessed for the financial year 1983-84 by order dated October 24, 1986, passed by the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur. The assessing officer imposed penalty of Rs. 43,700 under section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the Act on the ground that the assessee did not deposit monthly tax according to rules and did not submit satisfactory explanation also. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred and the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur, found that imposition of penalty under section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the Act for non-payment of monthly tax according to rules is not justified. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner accordingly remanded the case to the assessing officer for re-determination of the penalty as it is admitted that the assessee failed to deposit the tax as required by law. 3. Aggrieved by order dated December 8, 1987, of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, the assessee approached the Board of Revenue, which set aside the order of the first appellate court and observed that the case could not have been remanded to the assessing authority for rectifying its own mistakes. Thereafter an application for making a reference was made by the Revenue and hence the aforesaid question has been referred by the Board for answer by this Court. 4. In fact, in the present case, the assessee is found guilty of non-filing of return as prescribed under the law for which the penalty has been sought to be imposed. The assessing authority has imposed penalty under section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the Act. 4. In fact, in the present case, the assessee is found guilty of non-filing of return as prescribed under the law for which the penalty has been sought to be imposed. The assessing authority has imposed penalty under section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the Act. Under section 17(3) of the Act, there are three conditions laid down namely : (a) If a dealer fails without sufficient cause to comply with the requirements of a notice issued under sub-section (1); (b) if 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); (c) if a registered dealer fails to furnish return, the Commissioner may, after giving such dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, direct him to pay, by way of penalty - (i) in the cases referred to in clause (a), in addition to any tax payable by him a sum not exceeding fifty rupees for each occasion of default, subject to a maximum of five hundred rupees in each case; (ii)(a) in the cases referred to in clause (b) above, 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 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 during which the default continued but not exceeding aggregate 25 per cent of tax which may be assessed on him under section 18 and where no tax is payable, a sum not exceeding five hundred rupees; (b) where the period of default covers a period less than a month, the amount of penalty payable in respect of such period at any of the rates specified in sub-clause (a) shall be computed proportionately; (iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c), a sum not less than 25 per cent and not exceeding 40 per cent of the tax assessed. 5. 5. According to sub-section (3) of section 17 of the Act, in the event of any of these three defaults, i.e., (a), (b) and (c) of section 17(3), a penalty has also been prescribed under clauses (i), (ii) and (iii). For the default committed under sub-section (3) of section 17, a penalty can be levied by the Commissioner for the reasons to be recorded in terms of clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of section 17(3). In the present case, according to the facts as they stand, the assessee committed default by not paying monthly tax which was required to be paid by him. Therefore the penalty could be imposed under section 17(3)(ii). But the assessing authority has not even shown as to how he has calculated the penalty of Rs. 43,700. Thus, the question which has been referred by the Board of Revenue is also misleading. Be that as it may, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner has rightly remanded the case to the assessing authority to redetermine by proper calculation the amount of penalty leviable under section 17(3)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Thus, we answer this reference in favour of Revenue and against the assessee and direct the assessing authority to redetermine the amount of penalty in accordance with law. Reference answered in favour of Revenue.