JUDGMENT V. V. KAMAT, J. This petition has come up at the stage of consideration of C.M.P. No. 8046 of 1995. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the taxation authority and also in view of the fact that for violation of the accepted principle of natural justice, it would be necessary to quash and set aside not only the demand notices, but also the show cause notices regarding the proposed imposition of penalty, the petition is being decided as follows. 2. The petitioner is a co-operative society having its head office at Mangalore. It is a joint venture of the two States of Kerala and Karnataka and so apart from the two Governments, there are also other shareholders. The petitioner is registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax Acts and has approached this Court with regard to the two demand notices (exhibits P1 and P2). The notices relate to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93. In regard to these years the returns are filed before the respondent No. 1. Not only that, but the entire tax as per the return is also remitted. It is averred that the petitioner also paid the turnover tax under section 5(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act to the extent of liability according to the petitioner as per the return filed. 3. The two notices that are issued are demand notices dated January 9, 1995, for payment of turnover tax recorded therein, recording consequence of failure as initiation of proceeding under section 45A of the Act. 4. Apart therefrom, the record shows that notices are also issued simultaneously under section 45A of the Act for the years in question which are received on February 21, 1995 and are at exhibits P3 and P4. 5. It is urged that proceeding straightway for the issuance of notices of demand (exhibits P1 and P2) is in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the ratio of the decision of this Court [1993] 91 STC 156; 1993 KLJ (Tax Cases) 258 (Cochin Tea Syndicate v. Assistant Commissioner). It is also urged that even issuance of show cause notices under section 45A of the Act would also be liable to be struck down on the ground of the said notices having been issued premature. 6. It is also urged that even issuance of show cause notices under section 45A of the Act would also be liable to be struck down on the ground of the said notices having been issued premature. 6. As a consequence it is prayed that the demand notices and the show cause notices for the imposition of penalty, exhibits P1 to P4 being liable to be quashed and set aside, proper orders be passed in regard thereto. It is contended that if the returns filed are not correct, the respondent tax authority has to complete the assessment and pass assessment orders. Such a situation cannot be assumed in the absence of passing of a proper assessment order in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Unless and until this procedure is complete, no liability could be said to incur either in regard to the amount demanded under the notices and claimed as penalty in view of the show cause notices under section 45A of the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the department submitted that in fact exhibits P3 and P4 are only show case notices calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty proposed be not levied and therefore it is not necessary to grant the prayer of the petitioner in regard thereto as by issuance of the said notices (exhibits P3 and P4) what is followed cannot be other than the principle of natural justice. 8. At the other end it is the contention of the present petitioner that the penalty and the show cause notice in regard thereto is in the nature of a complementary position as a result of legal sustainability of the demand for turnover tax. It is contended that they are inseparables and always go together, emphasising especially that if the very issuance of demand notices (exhibits P1 and P2) gets disturbed by reason of violation of principles of natural justice, the proposed action under section 45A of the Act will not have independent sustenance. 9. In my judgment the position is considered and laid down in the decision in Cochin Tea Syndicate's case [1993] 91 STC 156; 1993 KLJ (Tax Cases) 258. 9. In my judgment the position is considered and laid down in the decision in Cochin Tea Syndicate's case [1993] 91 STC 156; 1993 KLJ (Tax Cases) 258. It is made clear that what is due is the amount of tax admitted in the return and in the absence of there being any material to show that the amount is admitted, there has to be a process of assessment. It may be that after the assessment the assessee may get exposed to other actions at the hands of the department by way of imposition of penalty after the initiation of the proceedings under section 45A of the Act. It may be that even otherwise if it is found that an untrue or incorrect return is filed, such an assessee also may be exposed. Even then the issue of demand notice cannot be contemplated unless the amount has the basis of admission. In cases where the assessee does not admit liability for any amount, the assessing authority has the only one course open and it is to follow the procedure and complete provisional assessment in accordance with law and then proceed with the demand in regard to whatever the amount of tax that is settled as payable as per the conclusion in the process of assessment. 10. Following the decision, therefore, it will have to be held that the two demand notices as well as the two show cause notices (collectively exhibits P1 to P4) would have to be held as unsustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as well as on the ground of proceeding to demand on an erroneous basis when the amounts are not admitted. The petition succeeds as above and as a consequence the two demand notices (exhibits P1 and P2) as well as the show cause notices (exhibits P3 and p4) are quashed and set aside leaving the authority to proceed with the assessment in accordance with law and above considerations. Needless to state that the authority would proceed on the basis of the demands as stated above and then consider the question of issue of show cause notice. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.