In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 18.12.97 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Assam, imposing penalty of Rs.l2,079 for the year ending 1994-95 and Rs. 14,183 for the year ending 1995-96 under section 23(1)(f) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. The short point raised by Mr. OP Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the penalty under the said section 23 (1) (f) of the Act can be imposed only if a dealer fails to pay without reasonable cause the tax payable by him under sub-section (1) of section 16 or under any notice of demand issued under section 25 of the Act. In the instant case, the petitioner filed its return of turnover of various items which were not taxable and hence did not admit the tax in its return. But the Superintendent of Taxes took the view that tax was payable on the sale of containers along with the non-taxable items sold by the petitioner and therefore the petitioner should have paid the tax along with return and imposed penalty @ 50% on the tax payable on the containers under the impugned orders dated 18.12.97 (Annexures G and H to the writ petition). Mr. Bhati further contended that in any case it has now been held by a Division of this Court in Bijoy Singh Bimal Kumar vs. State of Assam, (1998) 3 GLR 164 (1998(3) GLJ 215) that if no tax is leviable on the goods then no tax can be levied on the contains in which the said goods are contained, provided the value of such packing materials or containers is small in comparison with the value of such goods or such packing is essential or customary for the purchase or sale of such goods. He further pointed out that a Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No.2526 of 1998 has disposed of a writ petition filed by the present writ petitioner challenging the levy of tax on the containers in which non-taxable goods were packed by the petitioner and sold in terms of the said judgment of the Division Bench in Bijoy Singh Bimal Kumar (supra). According to Mr. According to Mr. Bhati, since no tax was payable on the containers in which non-taxable items were sold by the petitioner, no penalty, was leviable under section 23 (1) (f) of the Act. 3. Mr. B. Goswami, learned Junior Govt Advocate, Assam, appearing for the State-respondents, on the other hand, sought to sustain the orders of penalty passed by the Superintendent of Taxes and contended that tax was payable on the containers in which non-taxable items were sold by the petitioner and that no such tax was paid along with the returns and that the penalty orders were justified. 4. The impugned orders of penalty challenged in this writ petition passed by the Superintendent of Taxes are under section 23 (1) (f) of the Act. Section 23 (1) (f) of the Act reads as follows : “23. Penalties - (1) If a person or dealer: … … …. (f) fails to pay without reasonable cause the tax payable by him under sub­section (1) of section 16 or under any notice of demand issued under section 25 within the time allowed for such payment, the Assessing Officer may after giving such person or dealer, a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by an order in writing setting forth such particulars as may be specified, direct that he shall, in addition to any tax or interest payable by him, pay by way of penalty a sum not exceeding the amount of tax remaining unpaid on the expiry of the time allowed for its payment;” It is thus clear from the aforesaid provision of section 23 (1) (f) of the Act that if a person or dealer fails to pay without reasonable cause the tax payable by him under sub-section (1) of section 16 or under any notice of demand issued under section 25 within the time allowed for such payment, the Assessing Officer may after giving such person or dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by an order in writing setting forth such particular as may be specified, direct that he shall, in addition to any tax or interest payable by him, pay by way of penalty a sum not exceeding the amount of tax remaining unpaid on the expiry of the time allowed for its payment. A reading of section 16 (1) of the Act shows that tax payable under the Act is to be paid in such manner and at such intervals as may be prescribed. Rule 25 (1) and (2) of the Assam General Sales Tax Rules, 1993, (for short, 'the Rules') prescribes that along with the return full amount of tax payable on the taxable turnover shall be paid. Where a registered dealer or dealer therefore files a return showing no taxable turnover, he is not liable to pay any tax on his turnover and is not required to pay tax along with the return. Section 25 of the Act provides that when any tax is payable in consequence of any order passed under the Act, the assessing officer shall serve upon the person or dealer liable to tax a notice of demand. Where therefore a dealer files a return showing that no tax is payable on his turnover and does not pay tax along with the return, the assessing officer will have to make an assessment and serve a notice of demand on the dealer and only thereafter he will be liable to pay the tax as per the notice of demand and if he fails to pay the same, penalty is leviable .under section 23 (1) (f) of the Act. 5. In the instant case, the petitioner filed returns for the periods 1.4.94 to 31.3.95 and 1.4.95 to 31.3.96, copies of which have been annexed to the writ petition as Annexures A and B, showing that no tax was payable on the turnover of its goods. It was therefore not obliged to pay any tax under section 16 (1) of the Act read with Rule 25 (1) and (2) of the Rules. In case, the assessing officer was of the view that any tax was payable he should have served a notice of demand and made assessment in terms of Rule 25 (3) (a) and (b) of the Rules. But no such notice of demand or assessment has been made as yet. The penalty imposed under the impugned orders dated 18.12.97 for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 are therefore beyond the jurisdiction under section 23 (1) (f) of the Act and are liable to be quashed. 6.1 therefore quash the impugned orders dated 18.12.97 imposing penalty on the petitioners. But no such notice of demand or assessment has been made as yet. The penalty imposed under the impugned orders dated 18.12.97 for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 are therefore beyond the jurisdiction under section 23 (1) (f) of the Act and are liable to be quashed. 6.1 therefore quash the impugned orders dated 18.12.97 imposing penalty on the petitioners. But I make it clear that liability of the petitioner to tax on the containers in which goods were sold will be decided by the authorities in accordance with the judgment and order dated 10.3.99 of this Court in Civil Rule No. 2526 of 1998. . 7. The writ petition allowed. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their respective costs.