JUDGMENT K. P. RADHAKRISHNA MENON, J. - The questions of law said to arise from the order of the Appellate Tribunal are : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the information gathered during the shop inspection conducted on June 4, 1973, cannot be relied upon by the assessing authority on the ground that assessee had not endorsed the shop inspection report ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in interfering with the estimate made by the assessing authority after having found that the rejection of the accounts were justified ? 3. In the absence of any provisions in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and Rules to the effect that the shop inspection report is to be endorsed by the assessee, whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that a shop inspection report without the endorsement of the assessee cannot be acted ? 4. Whether reasoning, finding and conclusion arrived at by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the instant case are sustainable ?" The business premises of the assessee were inspected by the authority on June 4, 1973. The materials gathered therefrom provide the basis for the pre-assessment notice informing the assessee that unless the proposals are explained properly a best judgment assessment will be made. The assessee in his reply has stated that there is nothing on record to show that the materials based on which the proposal was made were collected on inspection. 2. Elaborating his contention, it is further stated that on statement containing the particulars of the materials collected on inspection had been made on that day. Whatever that be, it is further contended that he had not been appraised of the details of the materials collected during inspection. It is the common case of the parties that neither a statement of facts nor a list containing the particulars of the details collected during inspection had been given to the assessee. Whatever that be, it is further contended that he had not been appraised of the details of the materials collected during inspection. It is the common case of the parties that neither a statement of facts nor a list containing the particulars of the details collected during inspection had been given to the assessee. It is also not the case the Revenue that the officer had prepared a list of all such goods which were not accounted for and found in the business premises of the assessee and a copy given to the assessee in terms of clause 12 of rule 34 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules. 3. It is in this background the issues arising for consideration require to be considered. We do agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the Revenue that there is no legal bar in the assessing authority relying upon the materials collected during inspection even if the inspection is regarded as illegal. But the question here is can the materials collected without due compliance with the provisions contained in clause (12) of rule 34 be relied upon by the assessing authority to make an assessment. It should in this connection be remembered that this sub-clause in fact is introduced with the intention of safeguarding the interest of the assessee which otherwise will get prejudiced on the authority concerned exercising its power to conduct the inspection arbitrarily. 4. As already noted the materials relied upon by the assessing authority to make the assessment are materials collected without complying with the procedure prescribed under clause (12) of rule 34. If that be the position, the assessment in dispute has rightly been found by the Appellate Tribunal as an assessment not made in accordance with law. 5. There is therefore little scope to interfere with the same. The T.R.C. fails. Accordingly the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.