JUDGMENT C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this writ petition, Mr. Rama Shenoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the order of assessment passed, no doubt, for the second time, by the concerned Sales Tax Officer for the year 1956-57 evidenced by Ext. P. 3. It is seen that the assessment is to be made under the provisions of the. Madras. General Sales Tax Act for the year in question. There was originally an order of assessment for the same year made by the assessing authority on 24-3-1958. That order was taken up in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The said officer set aside the assessment by order dated 18-11-1958 mainly on the ground that the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. If that is so, it follows that the approach made by the assessing authority again for the purpose of making an order of fresh assessment cannot be said to be correct. 2. After the matter went back to the assessing authority the latter issued what he calls a pre assessment notice, Ext. P. 1 dated 7-4-1960. The various matters which should be indicated in the pre assessment notice and especially that the assessing authority must clearly inform the party concerned the basis which he proposes to adopt for the purpose of making a best judgment assessment are laid down by several decisions of this court but those decisions were not available to the assessing authority when he issued the pre assessment notice, Ext. P. 1. It is only on that ground that the baldness of the pre assessment notice can be explained in this case. No doubt, a pre assessment notice, Ext. P. 1, was issued. Ext. P. 1 after pointing out what according to the officer are various defects found in the account books of the petitioner ultimately winds up by saying that the assessing authority proposes to make an assessment on a best judgment basis and calls upon the petitioner to file his objections before him at 10 A.M. on 18-4-1960 in his office at Tellicherry supported by books of account and there is also a threat that if the party fails in complying with this order the turnover will be determined as proposed in the pre assessment notice. 3. The petitioner did appear on 18-4-1960 as intimated in the pre assessment notice, Ext. 3. The petitioner did appear on 18-4-1960 as intimated in the pre assessment notice, Ext. P. 1, and the petitioner also says that he appeared on the date with all the books of account maintained for the purpose of his business and he filed objections, Ext. P. 2. 4. But according to the petitioner, the assessing authority, who at that time was the officer at Tellicherry, never cared to look into the account books and the matter was left there. While so, the petitioner says without any further opportunity being given to him to substantiate his objections with reference to the books of account, another officer at Cannanore passed, Ext. P. 3 dated 20-9-1961. In Ext. P. 3, the assessing authority after referring to the pre assessment notice and also to the objections raised to that pre assessment notice by the assessee ultimately says that the assessee's explanations cannot be accepted and accordingly over rules his objections. 5. It must be noted that the assessing authority mainly relies upon what he calls must have been suppressions which appear to have been noticed in the course of inspection in March 1956. Pausing here for a minute it must be stated that what was found out in March 1956 has absolutely no bearing in considering the question whether there is any suppression because the year in question commences only on the 1st of April 1956. 6. Another matter which appears to have loomed large in the matter of assessment related to electrical energy. Admittedly, neither the number of units that the petitioner has consumed nor the number of units which according to the assessing authority should ordinarily have been consumed for the purpose of crushing a particular quantity of copra has been indicated in the pre assessment notice, Ext. P. 1. But in the order of assessment the assessing authority says that these and various other anomalies are enough to condemn the books of account as artificial and, therefore, the books of account cannot be accepted. Ultimately, he makes an estimate of the turnover of the party for the year in question. 7. Mr. Rama Shenoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view is perfectly well founded in his contention that the pre assessment notice, Ex. Ultimately, he makes an estimate of the turnover of the party for the year in question. 7. Mr. Rama Shenoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view is perfectly well founded in his contention that the pre assessment notice, Ex. P. 1, does not satisfy the requirements of the decisions of this court as to what exactly are the matters which are to contain in the pre assessment notice. This Court has repeatedly held that the issue of a pre assessment notice is not an empty formality, that the pre assessment notice should clearly indicate the reasons for the officer rejecting the books of account and also indicate sufficiently clearly the basis which he proposes to adopt for the purpose of making an order of assessment on a best judgment basis. The assessing authority must also give a full and fair opportunity to the assessee to make his representations or offer his explanations in respect of various proposals that may be indicated in such a pre assessment notice. 8. I am only pointing out a very serious defect in the pre assessment notice, namely, that according to the assessing authority, the D. C. T. O. inspected the premises of the petitioner on 6-3-1956 and on that date the stock - 46 bags of copra - was not supported by vouchers. He refers to 8-3-1956 and says that the day book was not written up to date. These are all defects that can be taken into account for the purpose of assessment for the year ending with 31st March 1956. 9. All the other matters mentioned in the pre assessment notice are more a criticism of the manner in which the petitioner was keeping his account books or having his dealings. From all these, I could say no concrete proposals have been made in the pre assessment notice which could be said to comply with the directions given by this court in such matters. 10. Left with such a pre assessment notice the assessee, in my opinion, had no other alternative but to draw the attention of the officer that he has not seen the books of account which he says are not genuine and he has also stated that the inspection stated to have been conducted on 6-3-1956 and 8-3-1956 has absolutely no bearing in respect of the accounts for 1956-57. Then he has given certain other explanations. 11. Then he has given certain other explanations. 11. The order of assessment, in my view, merely agrees with the pre assessment notice issued by the authority and after stating that a pre assessment notice was issued and the assessee has filed his objections and that the assessee's explanations are not satisfactory has merely proceeded to an estimate without any basis whatsoever. 12. However regrettable it may be, the matter has to go back to the assessing authority for a third time, as there is no other alternative but to set aside the order under attack and direct the assessing authority to pass a fresh order of assessment for the year in question. 13. Mr. Rama Shenoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously urged that his client is an assessee under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and for that purpose both under the statute and the rules there is an obligation on the part of his client to maintain proper account books for the purpose of his business in respect of assessment to sales tax made by another officer. If that is so, the question assumes some significance, namely, if an assessee is bound in law to maintain books of account in respect of that business and if those books of account have been approved by officers charged with similar duties functioning under another statute and set of rules, the assessing authority in this case must give more serious attention to those books of account before those books of account can be discarded by him. 14. In fact, the main grievance of the assessee is that the books of account produced by him in response to the pre assessment notice issued by the officer on 7-4-1960 have not been looked into at all. In fact, the original assessing officer who was dealing with the matter had nothing to do with the final order of assessment which was passed by a totally different officer at Cannanore. 15. In view of all these infirmities, as I mentioned earlier, the order of assessment will have to be set aside. 16. In fact, the original assessing officer who was dealing with the matter had nothing to do with the final order of assessment which was passed by a totally different officer at Cannanore. 15. In view of all these infirmities, as I mentioned earlier, the order of assessment will have to be set aside. 16. Before the fresh proceedings are commenced, the petitioner will within 8 weeks from today furnish a clear statement to the assessing authority giving the actual figures of the quantity of copra and other commodities crushed in his mill, the number of units which, according to him, are necessary for crushing that copra and also the quantity of flour or copra belonging to third parties which has been crushed in this mill and also the approximate unit of electricity that, according to the petitioner, may have been consumed for that purpose. The petitioner will also include in that statement a list of the various books of account and bills and vouchers etc., which he claims to maintain under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the relevant rules. After getting this statement within the period mentioned above the assessing authority will give the petitioner an opportunity to sustain the return itself with reference to the various matters that he may mention in the statement which he is now permitted to file before the assessing authority. 17. If ultimately, the assessing authority still proposes to fall back upon his powers of making an assessment on a best judgment basis, as I mentioned earlier, there is an obligation and a duty on his part to indicate clearly to the assessee the basis which he proposes to adopt for such purpose and invite explanations or objections to those proposals from the assessee and after a due consideration of all these representations or objections an assessment will be made according to law. 18. Subject to these directions and observations, the writ petition is allowed and the order under attack is set aside. 19. Amounts, if any, that the petitioner has paid in pursuance of the order now set aside, will continue to be kept to the credit of the petitioner to be finally adjusted dependent upon the tax liability to be fixed by the officer by the fresh order to be passed. 20. Parties will bear their own costs. 21. The C. M. P. is dismissed.