JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. N.C. Pal, learned Government Advocate, and Mr. P. Gautam, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm, which has come into existence in pursuance of a deed of partnership, to carry out the business of manufacturing of bricks, sale and supply thereof. The Petitioner No. 1 stands registered as a dealer under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (in short, TVAT Act) and a Certificate of Registration, as a dealer, has been issued, in this regard, by the Superintendent of Taxes, Kailashahar. The Certificate of Registration, so issued, makes the dealer liable to pay tax on and from 12th of January, 2009. 3. Before the issuance of the Certificate of Registration aforementioned, an enquiry had been conducted and the enquiry report, submitted to the Superintendent of Taxes, Kailashahar, stated that during inspection of the brick kiln, no coal had been found kept stocked there and that firing of the green had not yet been started. 4. An agreement was reached, on 20.03.2010, between the Government of Tripura, on the one hand, and Tripura Brick Manufacturers Association, an association of manufacturers of bricks in the State of Tripura, on the other. Under the said agreement, the brick manufacturers were to pay a lump sum amount, as tax, in different installments, for the financial year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 and it was, on payment of the installments in due time, that the manufacturers, as dealers, were to receive permits, in Form No. XXVI, for bringing coal from outside the State of Tripura for being burnt in brick kilns, the agreement having been entered into by the State of Tripura in the interest of the public so that the public, in general, face no difficulty in purchasing bricks due to failure, on the part of the manufacturers, to pay Value Added Tax (in short, VAT) adversely effecting thereby production of bricks and sale thereof in the State of Tripura. In terms of the agreement so reached, a Memorandum was issued, on 15.07.2008, by the State Government. In terms of this Memorandum, the first and second installments to be paid was of Rs.1,26,000/- each and second and third installments to be paid was of Rs.39,375/- each. In terms of the agreement so reached, a Memorandum was issued, on 15.07.2008, by the State Government. In terms of this Memorandum, the first and second installments to be paid was of Rs.1,26,000/- each and second and third installments to be paid was of Rs.39,375/- each. In all, the manufacturers, under the said Memorandum, were liable to pay, as tax, a sum of Rs.2,04,750/- for the financial year 2008-2009. 5. The Petitioner herein deposited the first installment of Rs.1,26,000/- and pursuance thereto, he was issued 11 sets of permits, in Form No. XXVI, for import of coal from outside the State. Thereafter, no further permit, in Form No. XXVI, was issued by the Respondents/authorities concerned on the ground that the Petitioner No. 1, as dealer, had not paid the remaining installments in terms of the agreement, which the manufacturers of bricks, had reached with the State Government. This apart, the Respondents have also, vide their letter, dated 23.10.2009, asked the Petitioner to pay Rs.5,68,578/- as tax and have issued, in this regard, a demand notice on 05.03.2010. 6. Aggrieved by the refusal to issue permit in Form XXVI and also aggrieved by the fact that the Petitioner was being made liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,68,575/- as tax, though the Petitioner, according to what the Petitioner contends, is not liable at all to pay any such tax, the Petitioner has impugned the same in this writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the principal ground of challenge in this writ petition being that the Petitioner started production of bricks on 01.12.2009 and he cannot be made liable to pay VAT on the strength of the Memorandum, dated 15.07.2008, aforementioned, on the ground that the agreement, in question, was not binding on the Petitioner inasmuch as the Petitioner had not even started production from his factory and could not have, therefore, become liable to pay VAT as manufacturer and seller of bricks. 7. 7. The Respondents contend that since the Petitioner has not paid after the first installment, any sum, in terms of the agreement aforementioned, a notice of demand had been issue directing the Petitioner No. 1 to pay the said amount of Rs.5,68,575/- and without realizing the said amount of Rs.5,68,575/-, the question of issuing permit, in Form XXVI, to the Petitioner does not arise inasmuch as the Petitioner cannot demand issuance of permit without having paid the tax as had been agreed to be paid by the said Association of brick manufacturers. 8. In support of their contention that the Respondents are entitled to realize tax by way of lump sum amount, the Respondents rely on Section 15 of VAT Act, 2004. For the purpose of a clear understanding of the position of law, Section 15 is reproduced below: 15. Composition of tax by certain registered dealers: (1) All registered dealers whose gross turnover of sales does not exceed rupees ten lakhs, subject to such conditions and restriction as may be prescribed shall, pay in lieu of the tax as specified under Section 5, a tax at such percentage of the entire taxable turnover of such sales and purchases as the Government may, by order, notify, subject to the condition that no input tax credit shall be available to such dealers and no tax invoice shall be issued by such dealers: Provided that payment of tax under this section shall not apply to a registered dealer who imports goods from outside the state or manufactures or processes goods within the state for the purpose of carrying out his business. Provided further that a registered dealer may, by exercising option in the prescribed manner, elect to pay tax as specified under Section 5 of this Act in lieu of the provisions of this section. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained anywhere in the Act, the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify any dealer or class of dealers to pay lump sum tax in lieu of tax payable under Section 9 of this Act. 9. A bare reading of the provisions, contained in Section 15, makes it clear that the Government has been vested with the power of composition of tax payable by a registered dealer. The question of composition of tax arises only when a person incurs taxable liability and not otherwise. 9. A bare reading of the provisions, contained in Section 15, makes it clear that the Government has been vested with the power of composition of tax payable by a registered dealer. The question of composition of tax arises only when a person incurs taxable liability and not otherwise. If a dealer has not incurred any taxable liability or is not liable to be charged tax, question of composition does not arise. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 makes it clear that the provisions, embodied in Section 15, apply, when a registered dealer, whose gross turnover of sales, does not exceed rupees ten lakhs. 10. Thus, Section 15 is applicable to a particular class of dealer, namely, a registered dealer, whose gross 'turnover' of sales does not exceed rupees ten lakhs. The word 'turnover' has been defined by Sub-section (35) of Section 2 of the TVAT Act as aggregate amount for which goods are brought or sold or supplied or distributed by a dealer, either directly or through another whether on his own account or on account of others, whether for cash or for deferred payment, or other valuable consideration. The definition of 'turnover' shows that goods have to be bought or sold or supplied or distributed by a dealer. If a dealer has not, as in the present case, brought coal at all inside the State of Tripura or has not supplied or distributed coal, question of 'turnover' does not arise. Without the 'turnover' as defined in Section 2(35), question of composition and/or realization of tax does not arise for, 'taxable turnover' as defined in Section 2(32), means the turnover on which a dealer becomes liable to pay tax. 11. Thus, Section 15 cannot apply to a dealer if he has no tax liability. In fact, even Section 15mentions that Section 15 applies to those registered dealers, whose gross turnover of sales does not exceed rupees ten lakhs meaning thereby that the dealer must be one, who has made sales, and the turnover of such sales has not exceeded rupees ten lakhs. 12. In the case at hand, the Petitioner is not alleging to have made any sale of coal or any sale, within the State of Tripura, of any taxable goods. In such circumstances, no tax can be realized from the Petitioner. 12. In the case at hand, the Petitioner is not alleging to have made any sale of coal or any sale, within the State of Tripura, of any taxable goods. In such circumstances, no tax can be realized from the Petitioner. Independent of the agreement, which the Respondents rely upon, there is admittedly, no taxable liability of the Petitioner. The demand, therefore, raised by the Respondents, by their impugned notice of demand, dated 05.03.2010, directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,68,578/-, as tax, is wholly against law inasmuch as the Respondents have no power to impose any tax on the Petitioner without making an assessment in this regard, particularly, when the Petitioner has started his production on and from 12.01.2009. Hence, the impugned demand notice cannot be allowed to stand good on record. This apart, the refusal, on the part of the Respondents, to issue permit, in Form XXVI, to the Petitioner No. 1, and refusal to let the Petitioner bring coal to the State of Tripura, on the ground that the Petitioner No. 1 had not paid the installments as per the agreement aforementioned, are wholly against the law. In short, thus, the impugned refusal to issue permit and also the impugned notice of demand are wholly arbitrary and without support of any provisions of law. No tax can be imposed upon, or realized from, a person unless the law provides therefor. 13. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned notice of demand, dated 05.03.2010, is hereby set aside and quashed. The Respondents are hereby directed to issue, in accordance with law, permits, in Form XXVI, to the Petitioner No. 1, without enforcing the agreement aforementioned, within a period of one week, if there is no other impediment in law. In favour of Department.