JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. -- Heard Sri S.D. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Nimai Das, learned counsel appearing for the revenue. 2. The parties agreed for final disposal of the revision at the stage of admission itself in view of the fact that the controversy involved is very short and probably dependent upon the admitted facts. 3. In respect of U.P. VAT Act for the assessment year 2008-09 the revisionist was required to pay tax of Rs.82,52,936/- on or before 20.3.2009. It was deposited on 26.3.2009 i.e. with a delay of about six days. 4. In view of the above delay even though the revisionist had deposited interest for the delayed period, a penalty of Rs.16,50,000/- under Section 54(1)(1) of the U.P. VAT Act was imposed i.e. to the extent of 20% of the tax determined. The appeal and second appeal of the revisionist has been dismissed. 5. The argument of Sri Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist is that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case there was no deliberate delay in depositing the tax and, therefore, the penalty imposed is illegal and at-least exorbitant. 6. It is admitted on record that the tax was to be deposited on or before 20.3.2009. The revisionist got the draft of the entire amount of the tax prepared on 13.3.2009 at Mumbai which was to be deposited at Agra and probably on account of some postal delay it reached to the authorities with a delay of six days. There is no dispute that the draft was got prepared on 13.3.2009 i.e. well within time and, as such, there was no reason for the revisionist to have delayed the deposit except for the bona fide delay which may have occurred in transiting the same from Mumbai to Agra. 7. In Sales/Trade Tax 335 of 2015 (Commissioner of Commercial Tax v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta Memorial Trust) wherein a similar question regarding imposition of penalty under Section 34 (8) of the Act came up for consideration this Court vide decision 24.7.2015 held that in a case where the assessee had deposited the entire amount along with interest and the department had not suffered any loss, the deletion of penalty can not be faulted with. 8. 8. This is exactly the position in the instant case as the revisionist has deposited the entire amount of tax along with interest for the delay and there is no evidence that the department has suffered any loss. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the imposition of penalty on the revisionist is wholly illegal and arbitrary. 10. Accordingly, the penalty imposed is turned down and the impugned order dated 27.11.2015 is set aside. Any amount of penalty deposited by the revisionist pursuant to the impugned orders shall be refunded to the revisionist forthwith. The revision is allowed.