JUDGMENT T. L. VISWANATHA IYER, J. - Petitioners in all these cases are small traders in tea. They buy the tea locally in Kerala, mostly in auctions conducted by the Tea Traders Association, Kochi, as also from producers and dealers. They are aggrieved by the demands made on them for payment of turnover tax on their turnover of sales of tea for the months April 1992 onwards followed in some cases with threats of imposition of penalty under section 45-A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ("the Act"). The notices of demand for tax in O.P. No. 16846 of 1992 are exhibits P1 to P9 and relate to the period April to October, 1992. The notices of demand in O.P. No. 17233 of 1992 are exhibits P1 to P11 and relate to various months in 1992. The notices issued in O.P. No. 385 of 1993 are exhibits P1 to P8. The notices threatening imposition of penalty in O.P. No. 16846 of 1992 are exhibits P10 to P18, in O.P. No. 17233 of 1992 are exhibits P12 to P20 and in O.P. No. 385 of 1993, it is exhibit P9. The notices of demand have been issued in form No. 14D appended to the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 ("the Rules"), which itself is referable to sub-rule (10) of rule 21. Petitioners challenge the demand for turnover tax as also the threat of imposition of penalty, on the ground that the demand itself is illegal and without the authority of law. 2. By the Kerala Finance Act of 1992, which received the assent of the Governor on July 29, 1992, but which had retrospective operation from April 1, 1992, the turnover relating to tea became subject to levy of turnover tax under section 5(2A)(i) of the Act at the rate of 1/4 per cent of the turnover at the second point of sale in the State. The tax is leviable irrespective of the quantum of the dealer's turnover, provided he is the second seller in the State. Petitioners thus became liable to pay turnover tax on the sales of tea, in cases where they happened to be the second sellers of the tea in the State. The tax is leviable irrespective of the quantum of the dealer's turnover, provided he is the second seller in the State. Petitioners thus became liable to pay turnover tax on the sales of tea, in cases where they happened to be the second sellers of the tea in the State. Though the Finance Act received the assent of the Governor only on July 29, 1992, it was given retrospective operation from April 1, 1992, with the result demands were issued for the turnover tax for the various months from April, 1992, onwards. As noted earlier, these demands have been made in form No. 14D as if the petitioners had admitted liability for payment of the turnover tax in their returns. 3. One of the contentions raised incidentally in all these original petitions is that turnover tax is an annual tax, in respect of which it is not permissible to make provisional demands before the close of the assessment year. According to the petitioners, demand could be made only after the end of the year when the annual return in form No. 9 is filed. But I do not think it necessary to deal with this question, as the petitioners are entitled to succeed on another ground in relation to the demands in question. 4. The definite case of the petitioners - and this is not denied by the respondents - is that they have not admitted liability for any amount by way of turnover tax in the returns which they have filed every month under rule 21 of the Rules, and, therefore, it is not open to the assessing authority to make demand in form No. 14D as if they had admitted liability for any amount. Demand in form No. 14D is possible only when any tax is admitted to be due as per the return and not when no amount is admitted as due. The only recourse for the assessing authority in such circumstances is to make an assessment and demand whatever amount is due as per the assessment. Since there is no admission of liability in any of the monthly returns filed by the petitioners, and no assessments have been completed on them, the invocation of rule 21(10) and the issue of demands in form No. 14D are misconceived - so say the petitioners. 5. I find considerable force in this submission. Since there is no admission of liability in any of the monthly returns filed by the petitioners, and no assessments have been completed on them, the invocation of rule 21(10) and the issue of demands in form No. 14D are misconceived - so say the petitioners. 5. I find considerable force in this submission. Rule 21 provides for submission of monthly returns by dealers liable to pay tax under the Act. The monthly return has to be filed before the assessing authority on or before the 15th (now 10th) of the succeeding month, the return being in form No. 9 appended to the Rules. This form contains various columns relating to the total turnover, exempted turnover, taxable turnover, tax collected and the tax due on the taxable turnover. The provisions of rule 21 stand attracted to the levy and demand of turnover tax as well, by virtue of sub-clause (ii) of section 5(2A) of the Act which provides that the provisions of the Act and the Rules shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the assessment, collection and refund of the turnover tax under section 5(2A). Accordingly form No. 9 also contains columns pertaining to turnover tax, namely, class of goods, turnover of goods, coming under the First and Fifth Schedules to the Act, turnover exempted from levy of turnover tax, turnover liable for turnover tax and the tax due. Rule 21(7) requires that the return should be accompanied by proof of payment of the full amount of tax due for the month. Rule 21(9) provides that if the return so submitted appears to the assessing authority to be incorrect or incomplete, or if no return is submitted by the dealer, he shall, after following the procedure laid down in sub-rule (5) of rule 18 (for the completion of a final assessment), determine the turnover of the dealer for the month to the best of his judgment, and provisionally assess the tax payable for the month, after which he should serve upon the dealer a notice in form No. 15 demanding payment of the amount so determined. An assessment so completed can be subjected to appeal, second appeal and revision under sections 34, 39 and 41 respectively of the Act. An assessment so completed can be subjected to appeal, second appeal and revision under sections 34, 39 and 41 respectively of the Act. Sub-rule (10) of rule 21 provides that if the monthly return is submitted without a treasury receipt, crossed cheque or crossed demand draft for the full amount of the tax payable in favour of the assessing authority, the assessing authority shall serve upon the dealer a notice in form No. 14D and the dealer shall pay the sum demanded within the time and in the manner specified therein. It is this rule that is invoked by the respondents in support of the demands made in form No. 14D. I shall extract rule 21(10) and form 14D : "21(10). If the return is submitted without a treasury receipt, crossed cheque demand draft for the full amount of the tax payable in favour of the assessing authority, the assessing authority shall serve upon the dealer a notice in form 14D and the dealer shall pay the sum demanded within the time and in the manner specified therein." "THE KERALA GENERAL SALES TAX RULES, 1963. FORM No. 14D Notice for provisional monthly demand when monthly return is submitted without proof of payment of the tax due/in full. [See Rule 21(10)] Assessment No. To ............. (Dealer) Take notice that on the basis of the return in form 9 furnished by you for the month of ......... 19 ....... you are liable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (15 of 1963) to pay tax of Rs. ........ (Rupees ...........) (in words) for the month and you have still to pay a/the (further) sum of Rs. ...... (Rupees ........) (in words) only. This amount shall be paid along with penal interest, if any, due under section 23(3) within 30 days from the date of service of this notice by crossed cheque or crossed demand draft in favour of the undersigned or by remittance into the Government Treasury at ............... failing which, the amount will be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue and/or fine imposed by a Magistrate and you will also be liable to pay the penalty prescribed under section 45A of the Act. The above demand is only provisional and any further amount to be paid by you or any refund to be made to you will be communicated after final assessment. The above demand is only provisional and any further amount to be paid by you or any refund to be made to you will be communicated after final assessment. Turnover reported in the return. FORM No. 9. Nature of goods Rate of tax Turnover Tax due Rs. Total Tax if any paid Balance Penal interest due Place ......... Date .......... Assessing Authority." 6. A combined reading of sub-rule (7) and (10) of rule 21 and form No. 14D makes it clear that what is expected to be paid by the dealer along with his return is only the full amount of the tax due for the month, that is the amount of tax admitted to be due as per the return and not any amount, the liability for which is not admitted therein. Form No. 14D speaks of the tax due on the basis of the return in form No. 9 furnished by the dealer. This has to be read in the light of sub-rule (7) which oblige the dealer to pay the tax due for the month and which could only be the tax admitted by him to be due. What the dealer can therefore be called upon to pay by the issue of a notice in form No. 14D, without completing the assessment contemplated by sub-rule (9), is only that amount which he has admitted to be due as per the return. If there is no admission of any amount as due, no demand in form No. 14D could be issued. May be, the assessee will expose himself to other action at the hands of the department by way of imposition of penalty under section 45A or otherwise if he has filed an untrue or incorrect return, but that will not enable the assessing authority to issue a demand in from No. 14D, even assuming that the claim made by the dealer in his return is absolutely untenable. In such cases where the assessee does not admit liability for any amount, the course open to the assessing authority is only to follow the procedure prescribed by sub-rule (9), complete a provisional assessment for the month or months in accordance with law, and demand whatever tax is payable as per the said assessment. 7. I have already indicated that the petitioners in these cases have not admitted any turnover as liable to turnover tax for the months in question. 7. I have already indicated that the petitioners in these cases have not admitted any turnover as liable to turnover tax for the months in question. It was not therefore open to the assessing authority to issue notices in form No. 14D and call upon the petitioners to make payment of any amount as if it were due on the basis of the return. The notices of demand are therefore without jurisdiction, and made without following the procedure prescribed by the Rules. Consequently, the threat of imposition of penalty under section 45A is also untenable. The various notices, either of demand or of threat of imposition of penalty, issued to the petitioners in these original petitions, are therefore unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 8. A further contention was raised that the retrospective given to the levy from April 1, 1992, is unconstitutional and that it should be struck down. It cannot be said that the retrospectivity as such is invalid in law. The retrospectivity can be struck down only if it offends any of the constitutional provisions particularly Parts III, XI, or XIII. The pleadings in the cases are insufficient to establish that any of the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution is violated. Nor is there any allegation of violation of any other constitutional provision. It is not therefore possible to uphold the petitioners' contention that the retrospective levy of the turnover tax from April 1, 1992 to July 29, 1992, is unconstitutional or void. 9. It is true that the Advocate-General had in Hotel Elite v. State of Kerala [1988] 69 STC 119 (Ker) conceded that levy concerned in that case will not be imposed retrospectively. But the Government Pleader who appears in these cases is not prepared to make any such concession. This Court cannot issue any direction to make the levy prospective, so long as there is not illegality in the retrospective levy. It will be for the petitioners to represent before Government about the hardship, if any suffered by them by the retrospective levy, and it will be for the Government to consider the matter with all the sympathy that it deserves. 10. The notices and demand impugned in these original petitions are therefore quashed. The original petitions are allowed to this extent. No costs. Petitions allowed.