JUDGMENT BHARATI SAPRU, J. - Heard learned senior counsel for the revisionist Sri Bharatji Agrawal and Sri B. K. Pandey learned standing counsel for the Department. This revision has been filed against an order of the Trade Tax Tribunal dated February 3, 2006 in second appeal No. 594 of 2003 for the month of May, 2001 (U.P.) arising out of the penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee under section 15A(1)(a) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The questions of law referred are as under : "1. Whether in view of the judgment of this honourable court in the case of Shivaraj Tobacco Company, Kanpur v. Commissioner Trade Tax reported in [2010] 33 VST 387 (All); [2007] UPTC 794, where no provisional assessment order was made, the imposition of penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is justified ? 2. Whether in view of the judgment of this honourable court in the case of Triveni Sheet Glass Works Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [1999] 14 NTN 42, Mansarovar Paper & Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2000] 117 STC 329 (All), Eastern India Transformer and Switchgear (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1993] UPTC 212 if the tax has been deposited along with interest, the imposition of penalty is still justified ? 3. Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant was facing financial crisis hence the tax could not be deposited in time as the applicant - company became a sick company, still the imposition of penalty is justified ? 4. Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for late deposit of tax, still the imposition of penalty is justified ? 5. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal is justified in upholding the imposition of penalty ?" Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee - company was not able to deposit the tax for the month of May, 2001 (U.P.) in time. The delay in deposit of sum was for a period of four days. The amount of tax due was late paid but the interest as demanded was not paid. As such the assessing authority passed penalty order on November 29, 2001. The assessing authority recorded that on the late deposit of tax, the assessee had not paid an interest. The delay in deposit of sum was for a period of four days. The amount of tax due was late paid but the interest as demanded was not paid. As such the assessing authority passed penalty order on November 29, 2001. The assessing authority recorded that on the late deposit of tax, the assessee had not paid an interest. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, the assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by his order dated January 7, 2003. The assessee thereafter filed an appeal under section 10 of the Act before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, which affirmed the order passed by the two lower authorities by his order dated February 3, 2006. The other facts of the case which are also not in dispute that the assessee - company had become a "sick industrial company" within the meaning of section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 on March 17, 2004 which was on account of the fact that the company has been suffering losses from the year 1994-95 and was therefore facing financial problems. In view of this admitted fact, it is clear that the assessee - company was in financial distress and has made payment of the due tax within a period of four days. As such the assessee - company is liable to pay an interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum for delayed payment of tax. As stated earlier that the assessee - company is a sick company and it wishes to seek waiver of interest on tax deposited. For this purpose, the assessee may approach the sales tax authority with an application seeking waiver of interest as stipulated in para 12.7.5 of scheme of rehabilitation of the assessee - company. Since the company has shown reasonable cause for making late payment of tax, the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 15A(1)(o) of the Act was not justified. For this purpose, the assessee may approach the sales tax authority with an application seeking waiver of interest as stipulated in para 12.7.5 of scheme of rehabilitation of the assessee - company. Since the company has shown reasonable cause for making late payment of tax, the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 15A(1)(o) of the Act was not justified. The learned counsel for the assessee has relied on a decision of this court in the case of Govind Sugar Mills Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax reported in [2010] 33 VST 399 (All); [2008] UPTC 991 wherein this court has taken a view that in order to invoke the provisions of section 15A(1)(a) of the Act, the assessing authority is required to consider as to whether the dealer has failed to furnish the return on its turnover or has not deposited the tax due under the Act without reasonable cause. The court has held that the penalty under the provisions of section 15A(1)(a) of the Act can only be imposed where it is established that the dealer has actually failed to deposit the tax due under the Act without reasonable cause. In the instant case, the explanation of the assessee - company is a plausible one. The assessee has been suffering financial losses continuously for the period of more than five years and hence the company could not pay tax on time. But when the assessee - company paid the tax, it had not paid the interest, which is badly exorbitant. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee - company has failed to show reasonable cause for the delay in deposit of due tax. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty under the provisions of section 15A(1)(a) of the Act was not justified. The penalty is, therefore, set aside. The revision is allowed as above. No costs.