JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this writ petition the petitioner, a dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has challenged the assessment u/s 12(4) for the assessment year 1987-88. 2. Facts stated in the writ petition are that the dealer carrying on business in consumer goods in Bolangir as an agent of different reputed companies submitted returns for the assessment year 1987-88 revealing gross and taxable turnovers. At the time of assessment, a fraud report was taken into consideration and was also brought to the notice of the dealer. The fraud report related to two purchases made by another dealer of Bolangir, named, Manoranjan Dogra, of goods on credit on 18th May, 1987 worth Rs. 1,140 and Rs. 2,011.20 in two separate transactions on the basis of two receipts. When confronted with these two transactions, one of the partners of the dealer produced two cash memos representing the aforesaid sales. The assessing officer, however, believed the credit receipts and the statement of Manoranjan Dogra to the effect that the purchases were on credit and held that apart from credit sales, the dealer had also effected cash sales on 18th May, 1987, but the credit sales had been suppressed. Accordingly, he disbelieved the accounts and proceeded with the assessment to the best of his judgment by taking into consideration the credit sales suppression to the extent of Rs. 3,151.20 on 18th May, 1987 and enhanced the returned gross turnover by a sum of Rs. 12,00,000 thereby making a total tax demand of Rs. 83,452. The dealer averred that the assessment was vitiated by arbitrariness and non-application of mind, because the assessing officer was not solely guided by the fraud report in.making the best judgment of assessment. He was influenced by a pre-assessment scrutiny report of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bolangir Range, who gave a direction to enhance the gross turnover of the dealer by Rs. 12,00,000 in view of the suppression of the credit sales to Manoranjan Dogra. The assessing officer did not exercise his independent judgment and having accepted the instruction of the Assistant Commissioner blindly made the enhancement resulting in additional tax demand. 12,00,000 in view of the suppression of the credit sales to Manoranjan Dogra. The assessing officer did not exercise his independent judgment and having accepted the instruction of the Assistant Commissioner blindly made the enhancement resulting in additional tax demand. It is further averred that as he failed to exercise his jurisdiction under influence of the pre-assessment scrutiny report, it is a fit case for interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The opposite parties have filed their counter and have stated that the petitioner should avail of the efficacious remedy of appeal available to it according to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Having not done so, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. According to Section 3-A of the Act, the Commissioner of Sales Tax is competent to issue instructions and accordingly he gave administrative instructions in the form of circulars for pre-assessment scrutiny of assessment records by the Assistant Commissioners of Sales Tax of the Range in order to guide and advise the assessing officers in the matter of assessments so as to prevent loss of Revenue to the State exchequer on account of escapement of tax. It was clarified in one of such circulars that if an Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax will make pre-assessment scrutiny of the assessment proceeding, the appeal arising therefore, if any, shall be heard not by him, but by an Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax of the Range. In accordance with the administrative instruction, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax of Bolangir Range made pre-assessment scrutiny of the assessment proceeding of the dealer for the assessment year 1987-88 and in his confidential report gave advice and guidance to the assessing officer which was, however, not binding on him, but was instructive in nature. The assessing officer made the assessment to the best of his judgment without being influenced by such report and exercised the best of his judgment in making addition of Rs. 12,00,000 to the gross turnover. While doing so, the procedures were followed and the dealer was confronted with the fraud report strictly according to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, no illegality of any kind was committed by him. 12,00,000 to the gross turnover. While doing so, the procedures were followed and the dealer was confronted with the fraud report strictly according to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, no illegality of any kind was committed by him. If the dealer is aggrieved by the assessment, he is free to prefer an appeal according to law which shall be disposed of by an Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax of the Range. 4. According to Section 3A of the Act, the Commissioner of Sales Tax exercises powers and discharges functions contained therein. One of them is to inspect the records and to superintend the work of officers subordinate to him and their offices. The learned counsel appearing for both parties did not dispute the proposition at the time of hearing that in exercise of the above powers and in order to facilitate the discharge of functions, the Commissioner is competent to issue circulars for guidance of the Assistant Commissioners as well as the Sales Tax Officers. In exercise of such powers the Commissioner of Sales Tax issued a confidential circular on 14th May, 1987 for scrutiny of assessment records and orders the relevant part of which occurring in para 2 thereof was that the Assistant Commissioner should provide useful guidance to the officers to pass assessment orders. If the Range Assistant Commissioner has provided the guidance and the order of assessment of the Sales Tax Officer is appealed against, such appeal shall be heard by one of the Additional Commissioners of the Range concerned. This function of the Range Assistant Commissioners is called pre-assessment scrutiny. It is almost at par with the inspection of pending records by the District and Sessions Judges and the Chief Judicial Magistrates so as to give proper guidance to the civil and criminal judicial officers for expeditious disposal of suits and cases in accordance with law. Discharge of the function in accordance with the circular in order to give guidance to the Sales Tax Officers in respect of assessment, in our view, is unexceptionable. 5. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax of Bolangir Range followed the circular and inspected the assessment record of this case on 27th July, 1988. During inspection he noticed the fraud report relating to the credit purchases made by Manoranjan Dogra amounting to Rs. 5. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax of Bolangir Range followed the circular and inspected the assessment record of this case on 27th July, 1988. During inspection he noticed the fraud report relating to the credit purchases made by Manoranjan Dogra amounting to Rs. 3,151.20 on 18th May, 1987 and stated in his report that the alleged suppression was established after confrontation of the fraud report to the dealer. Considering the volume of business of the petitioner and the suppression of sale proved, he felt that enhancement of the gross turnover by Rs. 12,00;000 would be reasonable which should be distributed proportionately under tax-free and taxable groups. The assessment order was passed on 30th July, 1988 and the Sales Tax Officer found the suppression of Rs. 3,151.20 based on the fraud report established and he exactly enhanced the gross turnover by Rs. 12,00,000. This similarity of enhancement of the gross turnover led the petitioner to believe that on the suggestion of the Assistant Commissioner of the Range, the Sales Tax Officer made enhancement of the gross turnover and so he had no occasion to consider the case by exercising his independent judgment. Mr. Roy, therefore, argued with vehemence that the assessment under the Act being a quasi-judicial function, justice should not only be done, it must seem to have been done. According to him, the Assistant Commissioner intruded upon the realm of quasi-judicial activity of the Sales Tax Officer and imposed his views for enhancement of the gross turnover by Rs. 12,00,000. The Sales Tax Officer could not resist the report and the views of the superior appellate officer and so the assessment was not judicious, but on the other hand was arbitrary in character. In view of these facts and argument, the sole point for consideration before us is whether the superior and appellate officers should take active part in the assessment proceeding while acting in exercise of his administrative duties which are likely to influence the views of the Sales Tax Officer. In order to formulate our opinion, we have to analyse a few decisions. 6. In order to formulate our opinion, we have to analyse a few decisions. 6. In AIR 1958 SC 667 (Mahadayal Premchandra v. Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta), though the Commercial Tax Officer was satisfied on the materials placed by the assessees and their representative that they were not liable to pay sales tax in respect of some transactions, he referred the matter first for instructions and then for obtaining the "valued opinion" of his superior, the Assistant Commissioner and the latter expressed his opinion that the assessees were liable in respect of these transactions. The Commercial Tax Officer made the reference behind the back of the assessees, who had no opportunity to meet the point of view adopted by the Assistant Commissioner. Following the instructions and the advice of the Assistant Commissioner, the Commercial Tax Officer assessed the assessees to sales tax. On these facts in short, it was held by the Supreme Court as follows : We are really surprised at the manner in which the first respondent dealt with the matter of this assessment. It is clear that he did not exercise his own judgment in the matter and faithfully followed the instructions conveyed to him by the Assistant Commissioner (C.S.) without giving the appellant an opportunity to meet the points urged against them. The whole procedure was contrary to the principles of natural justice. The procedure adopted was, to say the least, unfair and was calculated to undermine the confidence of the public in the impartial and fair administration of the Sales Tax Department concerned. In Orient Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) reference was made to the case of Mahadayal Premchandra v. Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta AIR 1958 SC 667 and it was held: If the power exercised by the Collector was a quasi-judicial power-as we hold it to be-that power cannot be controlled by the directions issued by the Board. No authority, however, high placed can control the decision of a judicial or a quasi-judicial authority. That is the essence of our judicial system... No authority, however, high placed can control the decision of a judicial or a quasi-judicial authority. That is the essence of our judicial system... It was further held: ...That apart, we are clearly of the opinion that even if the question of the legality of the directions issued by the Board had not been taken before the authorities under the Act, as that direction completely vitiates the proceedings and makes a mockery of the judicial process, we think we ought to consider the legality of that direction... In Orient Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI), the main question for consideration was whether an assessment made by a subordinate officer in accordance with the instructions issued by the Collector to whom an appeal lay against the order of that subordinate officer can be called a valid assessment in the eye of law. Reliance was placed on Orient Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI), and it was held : ...no authority, however high, can control the decision of a judicial or a quasi-judicial authority that being the essence of our judicial system... It was also held: ...If the Collector issues directions by which the Deputy Superintendent or the Assistant Collector is bound no room is left for the exercise of his own independent judgment. 7. On a consideration of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the facts of the case particularly the pre-assessment scrutiny report of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bolangir Range, we find sufficient justification in the contention of Mr. Roy that there was scope for the writ petitioner to entertain belief with regard to the assessment for the year 1987-88 that the Assistant Commissioner had imposed his views for enhancement of the gross turnover by Rs. 12,00,000. May be, the Sales Tax Officer was really not influenced by the aforesaid pre-assessment scrutiny report and it was a mere coincidence that after rejection of the books of accounts of the dealer on account of the fraud report, the Assistant Commissioner, as well as the Sales Tax Officer thought likewise with regard to the quantum of enhancement. But a dealer in such a situation will normally suspect that in a quasi-judicial proceeding justice was not done to him, because of the supposed interference of the appellate authority in the assessment proceeding itself. But a dealer in such a situation will normally suspect that in a quasi-judicial proceeding justice was not done to him, because of the supposed interference of the appellate authority in the assessment proceeding itself. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the procedure adopted by the Assistant Commissioner in suggesting enhancement of the gross turnover by a specific amount on account of suppression of sales was not fair and there was scope for criticism that his action undermined the confidence of the dealer in the impartial and fair treatment of the assessment proceeding. It is important for the officers of the Sales Tax Department to note that even though they strive to check evasion of payment of sales tax by unscrupulous dealers which results in diminishing the State revenue, as they are quasi-judicial authorities under the statute, it is their foremost duty to administer the assessment proceedings with impartiality and fairness and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, so that the confidence of the public in them shall not be undermined. 8. By making the aforesaid observations we do not prohibit the Commissioner to act in accordance with Section 3-A of the Act or issue administrative circulars for guidance of the sales tax authorities. We do not also find anything objectionable in the confidential circular No. 14785-CT dated 14th May, 1987. In accordance with the said circular the Assistant Commissioner of a Range can make pre-assessment scrutiny of assessment records strictly for the guidance of the Sales Tax Officer. But by no means should he actively associate himself and observe in the report for rejection of accounts on any grounds or to suggest enhancement of the gross turnover and the like as was done in this particular case. 9. We were aware that efficacious remedy by way of appeal to the Assistant Commissioner is available to the petitioner and in such a case the writ court should not ordinarily interfere (see Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Orissa and Others. But as it appeared to us that on account of the pre-assessment scrutiny report of the Assistant Commissioner the assessment seemed arbitrary, we heard learned counsel in great detail and decided to interfere so as to make general observations, as we have done, for the guidance of the sales tax authorities of the State. 10. State of Orissa and Others. But as it appeared to us that on account of the pre-assessment scrutiny report of the Assistant Commissioner the assessment seemed arbitrary, we heard learned counsel in great detail and decided to interfere so as to make general observations, as we have done, for the guidance of the sales tax authorities of the State. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and annexures 3-A, 3-B, 3-C and 3-D are quashed. The proceeding is remanded to the Sales Tax Officer for reassessment in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before him on 14th November, 1988. The records may be returned forthwith. A.K. Padhi, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Allowed