JUDGMENT Viney Mittal J. - A show-cause/demand notice dated May 23, 2008 was issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Dewas, to the petitioner - company, requiring the petitioner - company to deposit an amount of Rs. 43,96,144, within three days, failing which, it was made out that proceedings for recovery of the said amount, as arrears of land revenue, shall be initiated. Copy of the said notice has been appended as annexure P1 with the petition. The petitioner - company filed a detailed reply on May 27, 2008. Various objections/pleas were raised by the petitioner - company. It was also made out that an application for exemption filed by the petitioner - company is pending consideration before the High Level Screening Committee, and since no decision had been taken by the said committee, it was appropriate that proceedings for recovery of the entry tax be deferred. The aforesaid reply filed by the petitioner - company has been appended as annexure P12 with the petition. However, on the same date, i.e., May 27, 2008 itself, Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) was issued against the petitioner - company whereby an amount of Rs. 43,96,144 has been shown recoverable. The aforesaid RRC has been appended as annexure P2 with the petition. Another notice for recovery of further amount of Rs. 87,92,289 has been issued by the Commercial Tax Officer. The aforesaid notice has been appended as annexure P3 with the petition. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner - company has approached this court through the present petition. One of the primary grievances raised by the petitioner - company is that although no assessment order had been passed against the petitioner - company, but still demand of entry tax has been raised, and an RRC had been issued. The petitioner - company has maintained that the course adopted by the Commercial Tax Department was wholly uncalled for, and even not sustainable in law. It has also been claimed by the petitioner - company that when the matter of exemption was pending before the High Level Screening Committee, then it was only appropriate for the Commercial Tax Department to defer the proceedings, and wait for outcome of the proceedings before the High Level Screening Committee. The claim made by the petitioner - company has been contested by the respondents. Reply has been filed. The claim made by the petitioner - company has been contested by the respondents. Reply has been filed. It has been claimed in the reply that the petitioner - company was required in law to pay the concerned advance tax regularly, and since there was a default in making payment of the advance tax, recovery notice had been issued to the petitioner - company. The fact that no assessment order had been passed as yet, has been disputed by the respondents, however, it has been maintained that mere pendency of an application filed by the petitioner - company before the High Level Screening Committee was of no consequence inasmuch as the petitioner - company would only become entitled to exemption, if and when, the same was granted. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the stand taken by the respondents, I find that since no assessment orders have yet been passed by the competent authority, no demand qua any tax could be raised against the petitioner - company, nor any proceedings initiated for effecting recovery thereof, as has been done against the petitioner - company. The existence of a valid assessment order is sine qua non for raising a demand against an assessee. The respondents in their anxiety to effect recovery, have conveniently forgotten to remember the said basic principle of a taxing statute. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the Revenue Recovery Certificate/demand notice issued against the petitioner - company is hereby quashed. The respondent - Department is directed not to order any recovery against the petitioner - company before a valid assessment order, in accordance with law, is passed against the petitioner - company. However, in the assessment proceedings, it would be open to the petitioner - company to raise all the pleas, as are available to it, in accordance with law. Before parting with this order, it may also be relevant to mention that since an exemption application filed by the petitioner - company is said to be pending before the High Level Screening Committee, it would be desirable that an early decision is taken on the said application by the aforesaid High Level Screening Committee, in accordance with law, so that unnecessary harassment of the petitioner - company is avoided. The petitioner shall be at liberty to present a copy of this order before the High Level Screening Committee for taking requisite action in the matter. C.C. as per Rules.