Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The controversy involved in all these revisions relate to levy of penalty under Section 15 A (1) (a) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for delayed deposit of trade tax/central sales tax in the month of May, 2003, August, 2003 and February, 2004.

3. These revisions are admitted on the following question of law.

“Whether on the facts of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the penalty under Section 15 A (1) (a) of the Act?

4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these revisions are being heard finally.

5. It is submitted by Sri Kapoor that the cheque/pay order/Bank Draft was deposited by the applicant alongwith the challan form for the relevant month well in time in the State Bank of India (the ‘SBI’ for short) and it was merely because of time taken in collection of the amount by the SBI that the alleged delay was caused which is not, in fact, the delay as the payment collected will relate back to the date of receipt of cheque as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Oagle Glass Works Ltd; AIR 1954 SC 429. He further submits that the Tribunal and the authorities below have committed manifest error of law and facts to hold the penalty to be levied upon the applicant and submits that the delay was only for 2 or 3 days which was merely because of the period exhausted by the Bank in collecting the amount and in some months it was because of holidays in the intervening period. He submits that firstly there was no delay at all and secondly even if it is assumed for a moment that there was delay of 1 or 2 days, the same was sufficiently explained and, therefore, the penalty under Section 15 A (1) (a) of the Act should not have been levied in view of the law laid down by this Court in the Case of Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax; 1989 UPTC 1074, Eastern India Transformer & Switch Gear Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1993 UPTC 212, M/s Triveni Sheets Glass Works v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, 1999 NTN 42 and M/s Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd, Sikandrabad, Bulandshahr v. Commissioner of Sales Tax; 2004 UPTC 468.

6. Sri Kapoor further submits that in view of the undisputed facts and the law laiddown by this Court in the aforementioned cases, the impugned order of the Tribunal is manifestly unjust and therefore deserves to be set aside.

7. Sri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel submits that the delay in deposit of tax attracts penalty under Section 15 A (1) (a) of the Act. Under the circumstances the levy of penalty is fully justified. There is no error in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The finding recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact and as such the revisions deserve to be dismissed.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties.

I find that specific grounds were taken by the applicant with complete disclosure of facts before the appellate authority that the Bank Draft/Pay order for the tax amount was deposited well within time in the SBI which was collected by the SBI after 2 or 3 days which allegedly caused delay of 2 or 3 days as evident from the facts mentioned in the grounds of appeal as well as in the written submission filed before the first appellate authority and before the Tribunal.

9. Rule 48 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948 provides for manner of payment as under:

“48. Manner of payment.—Unless expressly provided otherwise, any amount payable under the Act or the Rules as tax, fee, penalty, interest, composition fee or any money for any other purpose may be deposited in any of the following manners:

(a) in cash with challan in quadruplicate in a treasury or sub-treasury or any branch of the State Bank of India authorised to accept deposits under the Act, or

(b) by cheque issued by