JUDGMENT TARUN AGARWALA, J. - These six revisions filed under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") are directed against the proceedings initiated under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act for the non-deposit of the entry tax within the stipulated period. The brief facts leading to the filing of the revisions is, that the applicant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar and its bye-product. By U.P. Act No. 30 of 2007, section 4A was inserted in the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, wherein the manufacturer was authorised to collect the entry tax at the time of delivering the goods to a person. It transpires that for the month of September 2000 to February 2001, the applicant had not deposited the entry tax within the prescribed time but subsequently deposited the amount along with interest at 24 per cent per annum. However, a notice was issued by the competent authority under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act to show cause, as to why, penalty should not be imposed upon the applicant for not depositing the entry tax within the specified period. The applicant submitted a reply and showed reasonable cause indicating that on account of financial crisis, the applicant could not deposit the admitted tax but subsequently deposited the entire amount along with interest at 24 per cent per annum. The applicant further submitted that since interest was deposited, penalty could not be imposed. The applicant further submitted that the assessing authority had not initiated any provisional assessment proceeding nor passed any provisional assessment order, and therefore, penalty proceedings under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act could not be initiated. The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax, Lakhimpur Kheri after considering the matter, passed an order imposing penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act for not depositing the admitted tax within the specified time. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The appellate authority recorded a finding that the applicant had deposited the entire admitted tax along with interest, and therefore, partly allowed the appeal and reduced the penalty. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue Department as well as the applicant filed a second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal. The appellate authority recorded a finding that the applicant had deposited the entire admitted tax along with interest, and therefore, partly allowed the appeal and reduced the penalty. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue Department as well as the applicant filed a second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal, in its order, also recorded that the dealer had deposited the interest on the late deposit of the entry tax but, after considering the matter, remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for a fresh determination of penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act. The applicant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, has filed the present revision. Heard Sri Piyush Agarwal, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjeev Shankdhar, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. The admitted facts as called out from the record is, that the admitted tax was not deposited within the stipulated period but subsequently, the admitted tax was deposited along with interest at 24 per cent per annum. The record indicates that the delay ranged from a period of one month or four months. The cause shown for non-deposit was on account of financial crisis which the applicant underwent on account of the payment of cane dues pursuant to a recovery certificate. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to two provisions of the Act which are relevant and germane to the present controversy, namely, section 15A(1)(a) and section 8(1) of the Act which reads as under : "Section 15A. Penalties in certain cases. - (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 the return as required under the provisions of this Act, or ..." "Section 8. Payment and recovery of tax. Payment and recovery of tax. - (1) The tax admittedly payable shall be deposited within the time prescribed or by the thirty-first day of August, 1975, whichever is later, failing which simple interest at the rate of two per cent per mensem shall become due and be payable on the unpaid amount with effect from the day immediately following the last date prescribed or till the date of payment of such amount, whichever is later and nothing contained in section 7 shall prevent or have the effect of postponing the liability to pay such interest." To invoke the provision of section 15A(1)(a) of the Act, the assessing authority is required to consider, as to whether, a dealer has failed to furnish the return of his turnover or deposited the tax due under the Act before furnishing the return or along with the return without a reasonable cause. The penalty under this provision is leviable where the dealer has failed to deposit the tax due under the Act without a reasonable cause before furnishing the return. The return is required to be furnished under rule 41(1) of the Rules. Section 7(1A) of the Act provides that before submitted the return under sub-section (1) or along with the such return, the dealer is required to deposit in such manner as may be prescribed. The amount of the tax due is required to be deposited and when the assessing authority comes to the conclusion that the return furnished by the dealer was incorrect, it was open to the assessing authority to pass a provisional assessment order under rule 41(6) of the Rules and raise a demand. In the present case, provisional assessment proceedings has not been initiated by the assessing authority and that penalty proceedings were initiated straightway. In Shivaraj Tobacco Company, Kanpur v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2010] 33 VST 387 (All); [2007] UPTC 794, the court held that where admitted tax was not deposited, the assessing authority was required to initiate provisional assessment proceedings under rule 41(6) of the Rules and that the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act was not justified nor could it be initiated prior to the passing of a provisional assessment order and raising a demand. I am in complete agreement with the aforesaid judgment. I am in complete agreement with the aforesaid judgment. In the present case, provisional assessment proceedings were not initiated nor a provisional assessment order was passed under rule 41(6) of the Rules nor any demand was raised. Consequently, penalty proceedings under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act could not be initiated. There is another aspect of the matter. Penalty could not be levied where reasonable cause has been shown. In the present case, the applicant had furnished a reasonable cause, namely, financial crisis. No case has been made out by the opposite party, namely, that the applicant deliberately avoided to make payment within the specified period. Nothing has been stated that the ground urged by the applicant was baseless. In the opinion of the court, sufficient cause was shown by the applicant for the delay in depositing the admitted tax. The burden to prove the absence of a reasonable cause lay upon the Revenue. No material whatsoever has been placed by the Department to establish the absence of a reasonable cause. In Triveni Sheet Glass Works Limited, Allahabad v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [1999] 14 NTN 42, the court held : "Under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, a dealer has to pay interest at 24 per cent. This is virtually an usurious rate of interest and no dealer would subject himself such heavy burden unless it is really hard pressed for money. Penalty under section 15A(1)(a) can be levied, if there is absence of reasonable cause which has to be established by the Revenue. In the present case, the dealer had established that it had no sufficient fund to enable it to deposit the money within the time prescribed. It has been repeatedly held by this court that when the tax has been deposited along with the interest, no penalty can be levied. See Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Wire-Cond Delhi (P.) Ltd. [1986] UPTC 175, Western India Match Co. It has been repeatedly held by this court that when the tax has been deposited along with the interest, no penalty can be levied. See Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Wire-Cond Delhi (P.) Ltd. [1986] UPTC 175, Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1990] 76 STC 421 (All); [1989] UPTC 1074, Willard India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1987] UPTC 466." In Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Limited, Allahabad v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow [2000] 17 NTN 714, the court held : "As is evident, there was only trifling delay of nine days and fifteen days in the payment of tax and the dealer voluntarily without any action on the part of the assessing officer filed the return, as well as, paid the tax along with the interest at 24 per cent. The interest at 24 per cent is very high and nobody would suffer that interest unless there are good reasons. Penalty under section 15A(1)(a) is leviable if there is no reasonable cause and the burden to prove the absence of a reasonable cause lies on the Revenue. Apart from rejecting the dealer's explanation, it has brought no material on record to establish the absence of a reasonable cause. The approach of the assessing officer that there might be other bank account or over draft facilities merely shows that the approach is merely conjectural. As is evident the default was trifling and the State has not suffered any loss. On the other hand it has gained by earning 24 per cent interest. Therefore, there was no justification for levying penalty for such a trifling default. In Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1990] 76 STC 421 (All); [1989] UPTC 1074 and Eastern India Transformer and Switch Gear (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1993] UPTC 212, this court has held that penalty should not be levied in such circumstances. In Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1990] 76 STC 421 (All); [1989] UPTC 1074 and Eastern India Transformer and Switch Gear (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1993] UPTC 212, this court has held that penalty should not be levied in such circumstances. The honourable Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211; [1972] 83 ITR 26 has held that penalty will not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so and whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances." In Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow [2008] 11 VST 346 (All); [2005] UPTC 151, the court held that where the admitted tax was not deposited within the specified period on account of financial crisis, even though, the tax was realised from the customer and that the tax was deposited along with interest subsequently, imposition of penalty was not justified since the trader had shown reasonable cause for not depositing the tax within the time. In the present case, the reasonable cause had been shown by the applicant, namely, financial crisis which has not been disputed by the Tribunal. In my opinion, the applicant has shown reasonable cause and no case of wilful non-deposit has been made out by the Department. Consequently, this court is of the opinion that the imposition of penalty was not justified. In Mansarovar Paper & Industries Limited, Najibabad, Bijnor v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2000] 117 STC 329 (All); [1999] UPTC 1133, the court quashed the order of penalty where the trader had deposited the tax along with interest after the passing of the order of the penalty. In Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1990] 76 STC 421 (All); [1989] UPTC 1074, it has been held that where the tax due was deposited along with interest, the penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act could not be imposed. In Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1990] 76 STC 421 (All); [1989] UPTC 1074, it has been held that where the tax due was deposited along with interest, the penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act could not be imposed. In view of the consistent pronouncement of various judgments on this issue by the court, this court is of the opinion that the imposition of penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act was patently erroneous especially where the tax along with interest had been deposited and reasonable cause had been shown for the delay which has not been disputed by the Department. Consequently, initiation of penalty proceeding under section 15A(1)(a) was patently illegal, and therefore, the order of penalty was wholly erroneous. In view of the aforesaid, the revisions are allowed. The order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax and the order passed by the assessing authority under section 15A(1)(a) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act are all quashed.