JUDGMENT RAJES KUMAR, J. - These fifteen revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated April 27, 2001 relating to the periods May, 1997 (UP), June, 1997 (U.P. and Central), July, 1997 (U.P. and Central), August, 1997 (U.P. and Central), September, 1997 (U.P. and Central), October, 1997 (Central), November, 1997 (Central), December, 1997 (Central), January, 1998 (Central), February, 1998 (Central) and March, 1998 (Central), by which the Tribunal has confirmed the penalty levied under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was carrying on the business of pan masala containing tobacco, which is commonly known as gutkha in the brand name of "badshah pasand gutkha". The applicant filed monthly returns as required under rule 41(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Rules") for the aforesaid disputed period and claimed exemption on the entire turnover and had not admitted any liability of tax. Since the liability of tax had not been admitted, no tax was deposited. The assessing authority initiated the penalty proceedings under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that the gutkha was not exempted from tax, inasmuch as pan masala including tobacco has been excluded from tobacco product and, therefore, the applicant should have deposited the tax at 10 per cent applicable to the unclassified items. Since tax was not deposited the penalty was levied. Being aggrieved by the penalty orders, the applicant filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Kanpur. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed all the appeals. The applicant filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed all the appeals. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had regularly filed the monthly returns within the specified time as required under rule 41(1) of the Rules for the aforesaid disputed months. In the monthly returns, the liability of tax on the turnover of gutkha had not been admitted and accordingly, no tax was deposited. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had regularly filed the monthly returns within the specified time as required under rule 41(1) of the Rules for the aforesaid disputed months. In the monthly returns, the liability of tax on the turnover of gutkha had not been admitted and accordingly, no tax was deposited. He submitted that the applicant had not admitted the tax in the monthly returns on the ground that gutkha being declared commodity under section 14(ix) of the Central Sales Tax Act and was also subjected to additional excise duty under Tariff item 2404 of the Central Excise Tariff, therefore, such gutkha could not be taxed under the Act. He submitted that the various dealers dealing in gutkha have filed writ petitions before the Division Bench of this court challenging the levy of tax, which are still pending consideration. He submitted that various dealers have been exempted from tax on the turnover of gutkha by the assessing authority. However, so far as the applicant is concerned, since business has been closed despite the effort being made, the information could not be gathered whether the present applicant has been subjected to tax or not ultimately. He submitted that in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Anand Kumar Proprietor, Kanpur reported in [2006] 31 NTN 436 no tax has been assessed by the assessing authority on the turnover of gutkha and the penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act was deleted by the Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal has been confirmed by this court. The learned standing counsel submitted that Notification No. ST-II-7038/X-7(23)/83-U.P. Act XV/48 - Order - 85, dated January 31, 1985 by which tobacco product was exempted was amended by Notification No. Ka.S.Vi-II-1947/XI-9(7)/97-U.P. Act - 15-48 - Order - 97, dated June 26, 1997 by which pan masala has been excluded from the tobacco product with retrospective effect and, therefore, pan masala, zarda yukta, called as "gutkha" was liable to tax during the aforesaid period. He submitted that the applicant has illegally not admitted and deposited the tax along with the monthly returns within the specified time, therefore, penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act has rightly been levied. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. He submitted that the applicant has illegally not admitted and deposited the tax along with the monthly returns within the specified time, therefore, penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act has rightly been levied. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. Under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act, penalty is leviable in case if, without reasonable cause, dealer failed to deposit tax due under this Act, before furnishing the return or along with the returns as required under the provisions of this Act. Rule 41(1) of the Rules provides furnishing of returns. Section 7(1A) of the Act provides that before submitting the return under sub-section (1) or along with such return, the dealer shall deposit, in such manner as may be prescribed, the amount of tax due on the turnover shown in such return. The amount of tax, due on the turnover shown in the return, was required to be deposited. The dealer was not required to deposit the amount of tax which according to it was not due. However, if the assessing authority is of the view that the return furnished by the dealer is incorrect, it is always open to the assessing authority to pass provisional assessment order under rule 41(6) of the Rules and raise the demand. Without passing the provisional assessment orders under rule 41(6) of the Rules, it cannot be said that the return filed by the dealer disclosing the turnover and admitting or non-admitting liability of tax is incorrect. The penalty has been levied under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act merely on the ground that according to the assessing authority, there was liability of tax on the turnover of gutkha and the dealer should have deposited the tax at ten per cent. Admittedly, no provisional assessment orders for the disputed period were passed. Thus the approach of the assessing authority was wholly unjustified. In the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Anand Kumar, Proprietor, Kanpur [2006] 31 NTN 436 dealer was carrying on the business of pan masala containing tobacco commonly known as gutkha. The dealer had not admitted the liability of tax in the monthly return and had not deposited the tax on the turnover of gutkha. On account of non-deposit of tax penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act was levied. The Tribunal has deleted the penalty. The dealer had not admitted the liability of tax in the monthly return and had not deposited the tax on the turnover of gutkha. On account of non-deposit of tax penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act was levied. The Tribunal has deleted the penalty. Against the said order, revision has been filed before this court. This court upheld the order of the Tribunal. This court has observed that in case if the tax has not been deposited and admitted, the assessing authority ought to have initiated the provisional assessment proceedings but without passing the provisional assessment order penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act was not justified. This court further held that the assessing authority has exempted the turnover of gutkha in the assessment. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, in my view, penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act is not sustainable inasmuch as there was reasonable cause, thus, the same is liable to be set aside. Issue involved in all the revision is squarely covered by the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Anand Kumar, Proprietor, Kanpur [2006] 31 NTN 436. In the result, all the revisions are allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act is quashed.