PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two revisions arise out of a common order of the Tribunal dated 26. 7. 1991 passed in two appeal Nos. 527 and 528 of 1986 for the assessment year 1984-85 (U. P. and Central ). ( 2 ) BOTH the revisions arise out of a penalty order passed under Section 15a (1) (a) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the assessment year 1984-85 (U. P. and central), for not depositing the admitted amount of tax alongwith the return within the prescribed period due for the month of December, 1984. The applicant deposited the admitted tax for the month of December, 1984 on 31st January, 1995 by means of cheque drawn on overseas Bank, Ghaziabad. The applicant simultaneously on 31. 3. 1985 directed the Indian overseas Bank, New Delhi to transfer a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs to Ghaziabad Branch, as the said ghaziabad Branch had insufficient fund. The cheque presented by the department was not honoured by the Bank due to insufficiency of funds. The department consequently initiated penalty proceedings under the aforesaid section for failure of the applicant to deposit the tax due under the Act alongwith the return as required under the provisions of the Act. In reply to the show cause notice the applicant came out with the case that it has been issuing cheques payable at Ghaziabad for the last 3-4 months as directed by the Assessing officer. The Bank at Ghaziabad received funds only by way of transfer from Delhi as the dealer never deposited the payment received against the sales or otherwise in the Ghaziabad bank and as soon as it had submitted the cheque for the month of December, 1984, a request to the Bank, New Delhi vide letter dated 31st january, 1985 received by them on 1st of February, 1985, to transfer the amount to Ghaziabad was made. But due to negligence on the part of the bank the amount could not be transferred, resultantly the cheque was dishonoured and soon as the dealer came to know about the negligence of the banker, it immediately deposited the amount voluntarily by bank draft alongwith interest. ( 3 ) THE cause shown by the dealer was not found satisfactory and therefore a penalty around 10 per cent of the tax was levied. ( 3 ) THE cause shown by the dealer was not found satisfactory and therefore a penalty around 10 per cent of the tax was levied. This order was set aside in appeal by the First Appellate authority. The Tribunal in further appeal filed by the department set aside the order of the First appellate Authority and restored back the penalty order. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the dealer applicant has deposited the admitted tax as soon as it came to its knowledge that the bank has refused the payment on account of insufficiency of funds in the account, alongwith the interest and therefore the order of penalty is liable to be set aside. In contra, the learned standing counsel submitted that the admitted tax was deposited not immediately after the return of the cheque by the banker due to insufficiency of funds but after sometimes i. e. on 15th of March, 1985 and the interest for later payment of admitted tax was deposited on 20th May 1985 and as such the order of the Tribunal is perfectly justified. The applicant according to the learned standing counsel was not prevented by reasonable case in not depositing the admitted tax in the prescribed manner within the prescribed time. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal has noticed that 31st January, 1985 was the last date for deposit of the admitted tax and on that date indisputably the applicant had insufficient funds in its account with the bank. The letter dated 31st January, 1985 was given to the Bank on 1st February, 1985. It was the duty of the applicant to ensure that there is sufficient fund in its account with the bank on the date it issued the cheque. It was for the applicant to issue instructions for transfer of money from Delhi to Ghaziabad Branch prior to the last date prescribed for payment of the tax. The Tribunal has rightly observed that if the cheque would have been presented on the date it was handed over to the department, it could not have been honoured by the bank. The findings of the Tribunal that there was insufficient fund on the date the cheque was issued by the applicant is based on admitted facts and cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated in any manner. The findings of the Tribunal that there was insufficient fund on the date the cheque was issued by the applicant is based on admitted facts and cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated in any manner. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that there was any bonafide on the part of the dealer applicant to issue the cheque on the last date prescribed for the payment of the admitted tax when there was no sufficient fund in its account with the bank and the bank could not possibly transfer the amount from New Delhi to Ghaziabad on that day as it received the instructions on the next date. The necessary instructions were received by the Bank on the next day i. e. on the 1st of February, 1985. In view of these facts there is no illegality in the order of the Tribunal. ( 6 ) APART from the above, there is absolutely no explanation on the part of the applicant why the admitted tax was not deposited immediately after dishonour of the cheque in question. The amount was deposited after one and half month on 15th March, 1985. The liability to pay the interest on the late deposit of the admitted tax is automatic. Even then the interest was not deposited on 15th March, 1985 alongwith the admitted tax but was deposited on 20th May, 1985. The facts do not establish any bonafide or reasonable cause for not depositing the admitted tax in the prescribed manner within the prescribed time. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant has referred two cases namely Western Match Co. v. C. S. T. , 1989 U. P. T. C. 1074 and Modi Industries Ltd. v. C. S. T. , 2003 U. P. T. C. 1019 during the course of argument in support of his plea that if the tax is deposited alongwith interest for late payment of tax, the penalty is liable to be set aside. The cases relied upon by him are not applicable being distinguishable on facts, as indicated above. ( 8 ) THERE is no merit in both the revisions. Both the revisions are dismissed. No order as to costs. . .