JUDGMENT DAS, J. - On an application under section 24(2)(b) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act by the State of Orissa represented by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, this court directed the Sales Tax Tribunal to state a case and refer the following questions for determination : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in the absence of the examination of the inspector to support his report the books of the assessee could be discarded once the assessee took the stand that there had been no detection ? (2) Was the Tribunal right in holding that it was a case where there was no material on record to support the best judgment assessment ?" 2. The period of assessment is 1967-68. The assessee is a registered dealer carrying on business in jute, cement, wheat products, sugar, iron, asbestos, etc., at Jajpur Road, within the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack III Circle. On scrutiny of the books of account it was found that the accounts do not contain the details of purchases of jute as the assessee was purchasing jute from local producers. The accounts were not relied upon as correct and complete. The place of business of the assessee was inspected by the inspecting officer on 30th September, 1967, and on physical verification of stocks with the register, some shortages and excess of articles were found. The assessee could not explain the difference of stocks at the time of inspection. The managing partner of the assessee-firm was asked to sign the statement recorded by the inspector. In view of the fact that details of account of purchases were not kept and large amount of shortages and excess were found on verification, the accounts were rejected and a best judgment assessment was made by the assessing officer enhancing the gross turnover resulting in demand of extra tax. 3. On appeal by the assessee the Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision of the assessing officer but reduced the enhancement by 50 per cent and distributed the enhanced turnover under different tax groups. The Assistant Commissioner held : "Although the assessing officer mentions about this failure to adduce evidence, nothing is stated before me in the course of hearing to refute the same. The Assistant Commissioner held : "Although the assessing officer mentions about this failure to adduce evidence, nothing is stated before me in the course of hearing to refute the same. All these facts conclusively prove that the inspecting officer and the assessing officer were correct while the appellant was definitely not. Since these shortages and excess clearly point to suppression of purchases and sales, there cannot be any question of verifying the finding as regards the reliability of accounts and the assessing officer's right to take resort to estimate." 4. The assessee went up in second appeal to the Sales Tax Tribunal, which accepted the contention of the assessee and held as follows : "On the other hand, it is pointed out by the appellant that at the time of verification no discrepancy was noticed and there was no occasion for the appellant to refuse to sign any statement. The stock register maintained day-to-day, which was initialed by the inspecting officer, was produced for inspection and it was submitted that the inspecting officer has not made any remark concerning the discrepancy, if any, found on that occasion. The stock book has simply been signed by him in token of verification and some entries contain tick marks. The absence of any remark in the stock register must be given importance as the truth of the report of the inspecting officer is challenged. Such challenge is being made right from the start and therefore to prove the shortage the assessing officer would have done well to examine the said inspecting officer as a witness. The said officer has not left any remark in the stock book of the appellant and so there is no material to form adverse opinion against the appellant from his own records. The inspecting officer who is said to have made the verification is expected to know what he saw on the occasion and he is only the competent witness to depose to facts personally know to him. In the circumstance when his report is disputed, in the absence of his evidence, it will not be prudent to act upon his report, the truth of which is questioned. This is especially so because he has not left any remark in the account book verified by him. Hence the allegation against the dealer stands not proved. In the circumstance when his report is disputed, in the absence of his evidence, it will not be prudent to act upon his report, the truth of which is questioned. This is especially so because he has not left any remark in the account book verified by him. Hence the allegation against the dealer stands not proved. Thus, there is no material to reject the accounts of the dealer, which are otherwise correctly maintained." 5. There is no dispute about the fact that the inspector made a verification of the stock along with the register on 30th September, 1967. According to rule 3(1)(f) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, the Inspector of Sales Tax is one of the authorities appointed for assisting the Commissioner. The dealer is bound to produce accounts or documents or furnish any information relating to stocks of purchases or sales before such inspector and all the registers, accounts and documents should also be kept open for inspection by such officers as provided under section 16 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. 6. In the instant case, the assessing officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the report of the inspector about shortage and excess of stock and thereby did not accept the accounts maintained by the assessee. The sole question for consideration is whether the assessing authority can rely on the report of the inspector without examining the inspector and without giving any opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the inspector. 7. The aforesaid question is no longer res integra. The strict principles to Evidence Act do not apply to an assessment proceeding. The assessing officer is entitled to collect materials behind the back of the assessee and even need not disclose the source to the assessee in all cases. But he is bound to disclose to the assessee any material adverse to the assessee in his possession which he is going to utilise against the assessee in assessment. This is based on the principles or rules of natural justice. It is now well-settled that rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The requirement of natural justice would vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case. This is based on the principles or rules of natural justice. It is now well-settled that rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The requirement of natural justice would vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of Muralimohan Prabhudayal v. State of Orissa [[1970] 26 S.T.C. 22], it has been held by a Bench of this Court that the taxing officers are not precluded from making a fair and reasonable guess about the rate of profit, if the same is found to be low, on a consideration of the local conditions, though the accounts are found to be correct, provided that the requirement of fair-play that the information, on the basis of which a fair and reasonable guess is made, is supplied to the assessee and a reasonable opportunity is given to him to rebut the same is fulfilled. The principles or rules of natural justice were elaborately discussed by a Full Bench of the Court in Pramila Dei v. Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa [I.L.R. [1972] Cut. 469 (F.B.)]. Relying on the aforesaid two decisions as well as on other decisions it has been held in Ram Chandra Maikap v. State of Orissa [(1972) 2 C.W.R. 1913], that : "(1) The assessee is to be informed about the materials against him together with a statement of the allegations on which they were based; (2) He should be given a reasonable opportunity of stating his own case; (3) If the assessee demands that the witness reporting against him should be cross-examined by him, ordinarily such opportunity has to be granted; (4) The taxing authority would consider the entire material placed on the record and complete the assessment in good faith." In Banwarilal Sitaram v. State of Orissa [page 595 infra; 1974 Tax. L.R. 1960], a Division Bench of this Court has also held that the assessing authority is bound to disclose to the assessee any material collected by him which is adverse to the assessee and he is going to utilise the same against the assessee. The assessee is expected to meet such adverse material and thereby save himself from any adverse assessment. Thus, whether reliance was placed on the accounts and also the statement of the third-party, which was not recorded in the presence of the assessee, the assessee is entitled to summon the third party for confrontation. 8. The assessee is expected to meet such adverse material and thereby save himself from any adverse assessment. Thus, whether reliance was placed on the accounts and also the statement of the third-party, which was not recorded in the presence of the assessee, the assessee is entitled to summon the third party for confrontation. 8. In the instant case, the report of the inspector was disclosed to the assessee. The assessee also tried to explain his accounts and tried to show that there was no shortage or excess as reported by the inspector. On the other hand, certain entries were found to have been made subsequent to the inspection in the books of account of the assessee, which clearly establish that the accounts were manipulated subsequently. It is evident from the orders of the assessing authorities that the assessee gave explanation to the authorities challenging the report of the inspector. He never made any prayer for cross-examining the inspector. His explanation challenging the report of the inspector was not accepted by the assessing authority. Therefore, the reasons given by the Tribunal that as the inspector did not given any remark in the account book, the assessing authority should have examined the inspector, is not correct. The inspector is a public officer under the Act and the report of inspection submitted by him is indisputably the outcome of an official act. The report does not require proof to form part of the record. The approach of the Tribunal was entirely wrong. As already notified, materials on record clearly establish that the contents of the report of the inspector were disclosed to the assessee and the assessee was given opportunity to explain the same and, in fact, the assessee has given explanation. He never wanted to cross-examine the inspector with a view to challenge the report. In view of the discussions made above, we hold that, in the present case, principles of natural justice have not been violated. Our answers, therefore, are as follows : (1) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee's books could be discarded even without examining the reporting inspector. (2) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in holding that it was a case where there was no material on record to support the best judgment assessment. We make no order as to costs. (2) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in holding that it was a case where there was no material on record to support the best judgment assessment. We make no order as to costs. R. N. MISRA, J. - I agree. Reference answered accordingly.