JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - These are connected cases. The Revenue is the petitioner in both the revisions. The same assessee is the respondent in both the revisions. Both the revisions relate to the same assessment year 1984-85. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, disposed of T.A. Nos. 176 of 1988 and 878 of 1989 by a common order dated March 2, 1990. T.R.C. No. 62 of 1991 is filed against the order passed in T.A. No. 175 of 1988 and T.R.C. No. 173 of 1991 is filed against the order passed in T.A. No. 878 of 1989. 2. We heard the revisions together. The short facts relevant for the purpose of determining the controversy in the cases are as follows : The respondent-assessee is a dealer in aluminium vessels, steel vessels, etc. There was an inspection of the business premises on May 23, 1984. Excess and shortage of stocks were noticed. The irregularities noticed were admitted and the assessee compounded the offence departmentally on payment of Rs. 750. The assessee had reported a taxable turnover of Rs. 1,14,054. A pre-assessment notice was served by the assessing authority on November 14, 1986, proposing to reject the accounts and the returns for the year 1984-85 and estimating the taxable turnover at Rs. 1,71,255. The assessee filed a reply thereto, objecting the proposals on November 26, 1986. While so, on December 2, 1986, the assessing authority issued a revised pre-assessment notice changing the original proposal to add 50 per cent to the conceded turnover for omissions and suppressions and proposing to estimate the turnover at three times the average running stock of different items. The assessment was completed on December 31, 1986, on a taxable turnover of Rs. 4,89,510. In first appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, by order dated May 26, 1987, set aside the assessment and ordered a remit. The assessee filed a second appeal against the said order of remit before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal as T.A. No. 175 of 1988. After remit, the assessing authority made a revised assessment on July 31, 1987 and fixed the taxable turnover at Rs. 5,08,930. Against this revised assessment order, the assessee filed a first appeal, which was partly allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by order dated July 29, 1989. After remit, the assessing authority made a revised assessment on July 31, 1987 and fixed the taxable turnover at Rs. 5,08,930. Against this revised assessment order, the assessee filed a first appeal, which was partly allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by order dated July 29, 1989. The assessee, not satisfied with the said appellate order, filed a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as T.A. No. 878 of 1989. T.A. Nos. 175 of 1988 and 878 of 1989 were considered together by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and a common order dated March 2, 1990, was passed. 3. The Appellate Tribunal found that there was no legal and factual basis for the assessing authority to issue a revised pre-assessment notice on December 2, 1986 and the estimate based on the revised pre-assessment notice dated December 2, 1986, is not sustainable in law. The first appellate authority, having found on facts that there was no material to review the original proposal, was in error in directing that the assessing authority should find out fresh evidence and complete the assessment on the basis of such materials. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal opined that having held that there was no reason or material to issue the revised pre-assessment notice dated December 2, 1986, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was in error in directing the assessing authority to find out fresh evidence and to make a fresh assessment. In this perspective, the Appellate Tribunal held that the conclusion of the first appellate authority is incorrect, which amounts to direct the assessing authority to find out fresh materials or defects against the assessee and enhance the estimate and so the order of remit is unauthorised. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order passed by the first appellate authority ordering the remit in T.A. No. 175 of 1988 and held that the assessment on the basis of the revised pre-assessment notice is clearly unsustainable. Having held so, the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that it is unnecessary to adjudicate on merits the controversy raised in T.A. No. 878 of 1989 - the appeal filed against the revised assessment order after the remit. T.A. No. 175 of 1988 was allowed and the revised assessment order and the first appellate order, which were the subject-matter in T.A. No. 878 of 1989, were also set aside. T.A. No. 175 of 1988 was allowed and the revised assessment order and the first appellate order, which were the subject-matter in T.A. No. 878 of 1989, were also set aside. The Appellate Tribunal directed the assessing authority to modify the assessment in accordance with law following the original proposals for estimate specified in the first pre-assessment notice dated November 14, 1986. The above majority decision of the Appellate Tribunal was dissented from by the Departmental Member. It is from the above common order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated March 2, 1990, the Revenue has come up in revisions. 4. We heard Senior Government Pleader Mr. V. C. James on behalf of the Revenue and also counsel for the respondent-assessee. 5. It was argued that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the assessing authority had no power or jurisdiction to issue a revised pre-assessment notice dated December 2, 1986 and in holding that in the absence of fresh materials, the assessing authority was incompetent to do so. The Appellate Tribunal was in error in accepting the reasoning of the first appellate authority that for sending a revised pre-assessment notice, there should be fresh evidence or fresh material. It was open to the assessing authority to change its stand made in the earlier pre-assessment notice and there is no fetter in the assessing authority in issuing revised pre-assessment notice or notices. It is open to the assessing authority to change its original view and adopt a different view or basis at any time before the assessment and the only requirement in that regard is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to file his objections and lead evidence. It is disregarding these principles, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal endorsed the view of the first appellate authority that for revising the original estimate, fresh materials or evidence are required. The Appellate Tribunal has further erred in stating that the direction given by the first appellate authority that the assessing authority should find out fresh evidence and then make a fresh assessment is a clear error, and in setting aside the order so passed by the first appellate authority. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that however wide or unfettered the powers of the assessing authority may be, to issue a revised pre-assessment notice, it could be so done only for valid reasons. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that however wide or unfettered the powers of the assessing authority may be, to issue a revised pre-assessment notice, it could be so done only for valid reasons. Though there is power to issue successive pre-assessment notices, it cannot be done arbitrarily or at the ipse dixit of the assessing authority, and the power could be exercised only for valid or proper reasons. In the instant case, the revised pre-assessment notice dated December 2, 1986 was issued arbitrarily. There was no change in circumstances. There was no fresh material. The assessing authority had no case that the earlier pre-assessment notice is in any manner vitiated or incorrect and so justifies a revision. In this perspective, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the issue of revised pre-assessment notice dated December 2, 1986, is unauthorised and improper and the first appellate authority having found so, should have set aside the assessment made on that basis, instead of ordering a remit and directing the assessing authority to find out fresh materials and then make an assessment. 6. We considered the rival pleas urged before us. We are of the view that it is within the competence of the assessing authority to issue one or more pre-assessment notices. There is also no bar in cancelling a pre-assessment notice already issued and in sending a fresh notice. For the pre-assessment notice or notices issued by the assessing authority, there should be reason or basis. The assessee should also be given an opportunity to file his objections and lead evidence. These aspects can admit of no doubt and they are normal features in all assessments. At the same time, an assessing authority, exercising a quasi-judicial function, is expected to discharge its duties honestly, bona fide and reasonably. So, when a pre-assessment notice is issued, the normal presumption is that it would have been so issued only after appraisal or evaluation of facts and circumstances. If a notice so sent is to be cancelled or varied or departed form, normally, it could be done only on the basis of some reason or other circumstance which demands a variation. So, when a pre-assessment notice is issued, the normal presumption is that it would have been so issued only after appraisal or evaluation of facts and circumstances. If a notice so sent is to be cancelled or varied or departed form, normally, it could be done only on the basis of some reason or other circumstance which demands a variation. The instances which readily occur to our mind, when an earlier pre-assessment notice can be cancelled or varied or departed from are where the assessing authority realises that he has made some mistake or has failed to take into account some vital factors or has taken into account some immaterial factors or has not addressed himself to the correct question or some relevant facts were not noticed or a closer and better analysis leads to a different result. There may also be cases where a change in circumstances or some materials or particulars not available earlier or the significance of which was not realised earlier may provoke a revision or cancellation of the earlier pre-assessment notices. These aspects should be evident either from a perusal of the files or should be stated so by the officer when he issues a later notice either cancelling or modifying an earlier notice. The circumstances in which an earlier pre-assessment notice can be either cancelled or modified or a supplementary pre-assessment notice can be issued are not exhaustive. We have adverted to only certain instances which occurred to our mind readily. Without any one of the above salient aspects being present, it will not be open to an assessing authority to revise or modify or cancel a pre-assessment notice once issued. If such a carte blanche power or unguided or uncanalised power is conceded to an assessing authority, it will smack of arbitrariness. That will be unfair. That again will be against the guarantee envisaged by article 14 of the Constitution as held by the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi AIR 1981 SC 487 . 7. Considered in the above light, we hold that the assessing authority has power to issue successive pre-assessment notice or can cancel or modify or vary an earlier pre-assessment notice. But the power should be exercised reasonably and fairly. 7. Considered in the above light, we hold that the assessing authority has power to issue successive pre-assessment notice or can cancel or modify or vary an earlier pre-assessment notice. But the power should be exercised reasonably and fairly. We are of the view that in order to exercise the said power, one need not necessarily have fresh material or fresh evidence, which was not available at the time when he issued the earlier pre-assessment notice. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal overstated the law in holding that in the absence of fresh material or evidence, it may not be possible to issue successive or modified pre-assessment notices. On the facts of this case, the Appellate Tribunal concurred with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in holding that for the revised pre-assessment notice issued to the assessee, the assessing authority had no material before him. The assessing authority had no case that he committed a mistake or error when he issued the earlier pre-assessment notice nor this was a case where the assessing authority issued a later pre-assessment notice on the ground that relevant facts were not taken into consideration when the earlier notice was issued or on closer analysis, the pre-assessment notice required revision. In other words, on identical facts and circumstances and even without a plea that the earlier notice was in any way defective or demanded revision, a fresh pre-assessment notice was issued. The facts disclose that the assessing authority has arbitrarily changed the method of estimation. Whereas, in the first pre-assessment notice, he proposed an addition of 50 per cent on the conceded turnover; even without verifying the accounts or appraising the events or circumstances, he issued a second pre-assessment notice proposing to revise the estimate at three time the average running stock of different items. This was so done at the ipse dixit of the assessing authority, based on no material or change in circumstances or evaluation of the facts of the case. This was so done at the ipse dixit of the assessing authority, based on no material or change in circumstances or evaluation of the facts of the case. In this view of the matter, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner having found that there was no material to issue the second pre-assessment notice, should not have given a further direction that the assessing authority should find out fresh evidence and also in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner remitting the case to the assessing authority to find out fresh evidence and make a fresh assessment. To this extent, the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal setting aside the order appealed against in T.A. No. 175 of 1988, is justified in law. Consequently, we hold that the assessment made on the basis of the revised pre-assessment notice was properly set aside and the consequential direction given by the Appellate Tribunal to the assessing authority to modify the assessment in the light of the estimate made in the pre-assessment notice dated November 14, 1986, is also justified in law. In this view, it was not necessary for the Appellate Tribunal to deal at length with the merits of the case in T.A. No. 878 of 1989 and the Appellate Tribunal rightly set aside the first appellate order and the assessment order assailed in T.A. No. 878 of 1989. 8. We are of the view that the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 175 of 1988 and 878 of 1989 dated March 2, 1990, does not disclose any error of law. We dismiss both the tax revision cases. Petitions dismissed.