JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar :- This revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated January 13, 2011. Heard Sri S. P. Gupta, senior advocate, assisted by Sri R. R. Agrawal, appearing on behalf of the applicant and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel. The writ petition was presented as fresh on January 18, 2011. On that day, learned standing counsel has been directed to look into the matter and the case has been fixed today, i.e., on January 21, 2011. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the present revision is disposed of at this stage. The applicant is a manufacturer of sugar. For the month of September, 2010, the applicant had disclosed the Central sales of sugar for Rs. 73,62,82,251.43. The assessing authority passed the order under section 12(3) read with section 12(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") and levied the penalty at Rs. 2,94,51,290. The penalty has been levied on the ground that, in fact, sugar has been sold to the agent inside the State of U.P. and, therefore, in view of section 12(3) of the Act the applicant is liable to pay the entry tax and since the applicant failed to pay the same, the penalty has been imposed. Against the order dated November 27, 2010, the applicant filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Grade II, Commercial Tax, Range A, Meerut along with stay application. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Grade II, Commercial Tax, Range - A, Meerut vide order dated December 28, 2010 allowed the stay application in part and stayed the realization of the disputed amount of penalty to the extent of 50 per cent. Being aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal in part and stayed the realization of demand to the extent of 90 per cent. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that levy of penalty is patently illegal. He submitted that penalty has been levied without passing any assessment order. The agent has only booked the order with the applicant for the purchase of certain quantity of sugar. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that levy of penalty is patently illegal. He submitted that penalty has been levied without passing any assessment order. The agent has only booked the order with the applicant for the purchase of certain quantity of sugar. Subsequently, on the instruction of the agent, the goods have been sold to the various parties situated outside the State of U.P. in respect of which invoices have been raised by the applicant directly in favour of ex - U.P. parties. Therefore, the sale was to the ex - U.P. parties in the course of inter-State sales as the movements of the goods from the factory of the applicant to outside the State of U.P. took place in pursuance of pre-existing order. In the impugned order, the assessing authority has admitted that the goods were lying in the factory itself and the delivery of the goods has not been given. The dispute is recurring in nature. Such transactions have been made earlier also, but neither any provisional assessment has been made nor any penalty has been levied. He submitted that before the Tribunal, the applicant has filed balance sheet for the month of November, 2010 showing the loss of Rs. 59,57,69,640. In the month of December, 2010 the loss of Rs. 3,460 lacs has been suffered. There is an outstanding demand towards cane commission and also of the bank, the necessary evidences have been adduced, in this regard before the Tribunal but the same have been ignored. On these facts, he submitted that the applicant is able to make out a good strong prima facie case on merit as well as of financial hardship and, therefore, the recovery of the entire disputed amount of tax be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. The learned standing counsel submitted that the agent has booked the order for the purchase of the sugar. The actual delivery of the goods is not necessary to invoke section 12A of the Act. Intend to bring the goods in local area is sufficient for the application of section 12(1) of the Act. He submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has already granted stay to the extent of 90 per cent, therefore, no further interference is called for. Intend to bring the goods in local area is sufficient for the application of section 12(1) of the Act. He submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has already granted stay to the extent of 90 per cent, therefore, no further interference is called for. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions. Having regard to the facts that no assessment order has been passed and present is the case of penalty and considering the entire facts and circumstances and financial hardship, the order of the Tribunal requires little modification. As per order of the Tribunal, the applicant is required to deposit Rs. 29,45,129. In case if the applicant deposits Rs. 15 lacs within a period of one week, the recovery proceeding for the balance amount shall remain stayed till the disposal of appeal. The appellate authority is further directed to decide the appeal expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, the revision is disposed of. A certified copy of this order may be provided to the learned counsel for the applicant today on payment of usual charges.