PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant, a public limited company having its registered office at Sikandrabad, being a new industrial unit was granted eligibility certificate/exemption certificate under Section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, for the period of 6 years from February 3, 1986 to February 2, 1992. Consequently it became liable for payment of tax for the first time for the month of february, 1992 after February 2, 1992. Monthly returns for the month of February, 1992 were due and could have been filed by March 20, 1992 for U. P. and Central sales were filed on March 24, 1992 along with challans and cheque No. 443926 dated March 21, 1992. Non-filing of the returns for U. P. and Central by March 20, 1992 inspired the department to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 15-A (1) (a) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. In reply to the show cause notice it was submitted that the applicants executive who was dealing with the sales tax matter was under bona fide belief that the return along with the tax can be deposited by the end of the succeeding month. The explanation furnished by the applicant was not accepted by the assessing officer and he imposed penalty under the aforesaid section by the order dated March 31, 1992. For the month of February, 1992 in respect of U. P. sales the penalty was levied at Rs. 56,728 and for the same period in respect of Central sales it was levied to the tune of Rs. 1,23,607. The said penalty orders were confirmed by the first appellate authority by the common order dated November 19, 1992. The quantum of penalty was reduced by the Tribunal by the common order dated April 13, 1994. Still aggrieved the present revisions have been filed by the dealer. ( 2 ) HEARD the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The said penalty orders were confirmed by the first appellate authority by the common order dated November 19, 1992. The quantum of penalty was reduced by the Tribunal by the common order dated April 13, 1994. Still aggrieved the present revisions have been filed by the dealer. ( 2 ) HEARD the counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the memos of revisions the following questions have been framed : " (a) Whether the cheque having been admitted encashed on April 2, 1992 it shall relate back to the date of presentation of the cheque to the Sales Tax Officer (which happened to be March 23, 1992) and March 22, 1992 being Sunday and March 21, 1992 being half working day of the bank the delay in depositing tax was therefore on account of reasonable cause and the Tribunal has overlooked this aspect of the matter ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in view of Rule 48 the amount can be deposited by cheque and the same was duly deposited by the applicant on March 24, 1992 after getting it endorsement on the said cheque by the Sales Tax Officer on March 23, 1992, march 22, 1992 being Sunday hence no penalty could have legally been imposed under Section 15-A (1) (a) of the Act? (c) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the delay of two days cannot be said to be without reasonable cause and once cheque is encashed it shall relate back to the date of payment, hence no penalty can be legally imposed ?" ( 3 ) SECTION 15-A (1) (a) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act reads as follows : " (1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer or other person- (a) has without reasonable cause, failed to furnish the return of his turnover or to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner prescribed, or to deposit the tax due under this Act before furnishing the return or along with return, as required under the provisions of this Act. " ( 4 ) A perusal of the language employed in Clause (a) clearly shows that the assessee will be liable to pay penalty if he fails to furnish the return or to deposit the tax due within the prescribed period without reasonable cause. " ( 4 ) A perusal of the language employed in Clause (a) clearly shows that the assessee will be liable to pay penalty if he fails to furnish the return or to deposit the tax due within the prescribed period without reasonable cause. ( 5 ) THE undisputed facts are, as noticed in the orders of the authorities below that the applicant was granted the eligibility certificate, the period of which came to an end on February 2, 1992. The return for the month of February, 1992 was the first return after the expiry of the exemption period. Under law the return was required to be filed by March 20, 1992, but it was filed on march 24, 1992. The explanation furnished by the dealer was that its head office is at Delhi and sikandrabad is its branch office and the officer was authorised to draw a sum not exceeding Rs. 15,000 from the bank. This explanation was not accepted by the Tribunal on the finding that the payment of tax was ultimately made through cheque. It has also come on the record that the cheque given by the applicant was not of Sikandrabad but was drawn on a bank of Delhi. Therefore the explanation given by the applicant is factually correct and is also plausible. The contrary finding of the Tribunal is speculative and perverse. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that payment of tax towards the month of february, 1992 was made through a cheque which could be encashed and the fund came to the departments account on April 2, 1993 which shows that the amount was not deposited within the time. The learned counsel for the applicant challenged the finding and approach of the Tribunal and submitted that indisputably the cheque was given along with the challan of March 24, 1992 and the Tribunal under misconception of law wrongly observed that the amount of tax was deposited with the department on April 2, 1993 when the cheque was encashed. He pointed out that the cheque was submitted after getting it endorsed by the Sales Tax Officer on March 23, 1992. Photostat copy of the cheque as endorsed by the Sales Tax Officer, Sikandrabad, has been filed as annexure No. 2 to the affidavit. Rule 48 of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules provides for manner of payment of sales tax dues. Photostat copy of the cheque as endorsed by the Sales Tax Officer, Sikandrabad, has been filed as annexure No. 2 to the affidavit. Rule 48 of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules provides for manner of payment of sales tax dues. The said Rule reads as follows : "48. Manner of payment.--Unless expressly provided otherwise, any amount payable under the act or the Rules as tax, fee, penalty, interest, composition fee or any money for any other purpose may be deposited in any of the following manners : (a) in cash with challan in quadruplicate in a treasury or sub-treasury or any branch of the State bank of India authorised to accept deposits under the Act, or (b) by cheque issued by the assessee himself or bank draft, along with challan in quadruplicate, submitted to the officer or authority concerned on or before the due date of payment; or (c) by book transfer, in case of Government Departments, if so desired. Explanation.--Payment of more than rupees five hundred shall be made by cheque or bank draft only. " ( 7 ) FROM the aforesaid rule it is crystal clear that the payment of cheque is a recognised mode of payment of sales tax dues. Now question arises what should be the date of payment, when the cheque was given to the department or the date on which it was encashed. This controversy has been set at rest by a number of judgments of Supreme Court. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. [1954] 25 ITR 529 (SC) ; AIR 1954 SC 429 , it was laid down by the supreme Court that payment by cheque realised subsequently on the cheque being honoured and encashed relates back to the date of the receipt of the cheque, and in law the date of payment is the date of delivery of the cheque. The Supreme Court was considering the said question under the Income-tax Act with reference to Negotiable Instruments Act. ( 8 ) AGAIN this question arose with reference to payment of rent by tenant to landlord through cheque in Damadilal v. Parashram AIR 1976 SC 2229 . It was held as follows : ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It was held as follows : ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the defendants tendered the amount in arrears by cheque within the prescribed time. The question is whether this was a lawful tender. It is well-established that a cheque sent in payment of a debt on the request of the creditor, unless dishonoured, operates as valid discharge of the debt and, if the cheque was sent by post and was met on presentation, the date of payment is the date when cheque was posted. " ( 9 ) IN K. Saraswathy Alias K. Kalpana v. P. S. S. Somasundaram Chettiar (1989) 4 SCC 527 . "payment by cheque is an ordinary incident of present day life, whether commercial or private, and unless it is specifically mentioned that payment must be in cash payment by cheque should be taken to be due payment if the cheque is subsequently encashed in the ordinary course. In this case there was nothing to show that if the cheque was presented for encashment on the date it was delivered the cheque would not have been encashed, or that the bank had at anytime declined to honour it for want of funds in the ordinary course, or that under the arrangements made for payment of the cheque, even if it had been put for encashment on the date it was delivered the cheque would not have been encahsed. Therefore, the submission that there was no money on the date of delivery of the cheque to support payment of it and that it was subsequently when arrangements were made that the cheque was realised, cannot be sustained. " ( 10 ) IN the above case the Supreme Court has followed its earlier judgment given in the case of commissioner of Income-tax v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. [1954] 25 ITR 529 (SC) ; AIR 1954 SC 429 . ( 11 ) THIS view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta v. Vishwanath Bhikaji Mogul (1997) 5 JT 363 (SC ). ( 11 ) THIS view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta v. Vishwanath Bhikaji Mogul (1997) 5 JT 363 (SC ). ( 12 ) THE Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of K. Venkata Reddy v. Commissioner of income-tax [2001] 250 ITR 147 has held with reference to Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 in pursuance of Finance Act No. 2 of 1998 that payment of any amount by cheque would be deemed to have been made on the date of presentation of the cheque, if it is not dishonored. ( 13 ) HOWEVER, in the case of Gopi Chand v. Jain Plastic Industry (2002) 5 SCC 274 the Supreme court has held that mere posting of a cheque without there being any material to show that the said posting of the cheque was with an intention of clearing the arrears of rent, would not amount the payment of rent to the landlord. In that case the tenant was earlier paying the rent in cash but this time rent was sent by way of cheque through post. On the postal envelope incomplete address of the landlord was given which was deliberately done to make out a case of having tendered the rent. Supreme Court after considering facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the tender was not a legal tender. ( 14 ) FROM the above authorities coupled with the Rule 48 of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules it is clear that the date of payment through cheque is the date when the cheque was presented provided it is encashed. To put it differently the payment shall relate back to the date of presentation of the cheque to the department. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the last date of deposit was march 20, 1992, the cheque endorsed on March 23, 1992 and was deposited for encashment on march 24, 1992 and was actually encashed on April 2, 1992. Therefore, the payment of tax is to be taken as March 24, 1992. The finding of the Tribunal that it shall be April 2, 1992 is legally incorrect and cannot be sustained. Therefore, the payment of tax is to be taken as March 24, 1992. The finding of the Tribunal that it shall be April 2, 1992 is legally incorrect and cannot be sustained. ( 15 ) NOW, further a question arises that taking March 24, 1992 as the date of payment still there is delay of 4 days in making the payment and it would attract the penal provisions of Section 15-A (1) (a) or not. ( 16 ) RULE 41 of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules provides filing of the monthly returns and deposit of tax due thereon on the basis of the monthly returns. Except as provided in the proviso to Rule 41 the return for the month of February all other monthly returns have to be filed before the expiry of the next succeeding month. In pursuance of the proviso to Rule 41, the return of the month of february shall be submitted to the Sales Tax Officer on or before 20th day of March. The return for the month of February 1992 was the applicants first return as for earlier period the tax holiday under Section 4-A was in operation. It has also come in the order of the Tribunal that the applicant has deposited Rs. 1 lakh as advance for the month of March, 1992, in the month of march, 1992 itself. It was argued before the Tribunal that it should be taken as a mitigating circumstance and the order of penalty should be knocked off in its entirety. The Tribunal has accepted it partially by reducing the penalty amount. This Court in the case of Bahadur Motors v. Commissioner of Trade Tax (1999) 15 NTN 614 has held that it is a settled principle that the law does not take into account trifles. The delay of one day in that case was considered not to be a fit case for imposition of the penalty. In the case in hand there was Sunday intervening in-between march 20, 1992 and March 24, 1992. Therefore the delay is practically of 2-3 days and the default was very trivial. ( 17 ) PENALTY under Section 15-A (1) (a) is not mandatory and it has been repeatedly held by this court that for such trifle no penalty can be levied. It was so held in Western India Match Co. Therefore the delay is practically of 2-3 days and the default was very trivial. ( 17 ) PENALTY under Section 15-A (1) (a) is not mandatory and it has been repeatedly held by this court that for such trifle no penalty can be levied. It was so held in Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. , Lucknow [1990] 76 STC 421 (All.); 1989 UPTC 1074 and the East India Transformers and Switch Gear (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1993 uptc 212. There are various other judgments also on the same lines such as Triveni Sheets glass Works v. Commissioner of Trade Tax (1999) 14 NTN 42 (All. ). The power to levy penalty is a discretionary power. It should be exercised in a reasonable manner and penalty should not be imposed in each and every case when there is a default. Imposition of penalty under Section 15-A (1) (a) of the Act mechanically is highly improper and cannot be approved. The departmental authorities are supposed to exercise the discretion in a reasonable manner so as to advance the sense of justice. Taking into consideration overall picture of the case the levy of penalty under the aforesaid section cannot be approved by this Court. ( 18 ) IN the result both the revisions are allowed and the penalty orders under Section 15-A (1) (a)of the Act both under U. P. and Central for the month of February, 1992 are set aside with costs which I assess at Rs. 1,000 in both the cases. . .