JUDGMENT V. V. KAMAT, J. The facts averred in this petition clearly spell out violation of the principles of natural justice, requiring petitioner to be heard in the matter under controversy. 2. The petitioner is a retail dealer in fertilizers. He has a certificate of registration dated March 31, 1995 in fertilizer control order, produced at exhibit P1, authorising him to deal in sale of fertilizers within the State of Kerala only and as such he has registered as an assessee on the file of the Sales Tax Officer, Muvattupuzha. It is seen and averred that the bulk of his sale appears to be second sale exempt from tax, obviously the first seller being FACT. 3. In pursuance thereof for the year 1993-94 the petitioner claimed exemption on a turnover amounting to Rs. 84,69,716 on the aspect of the turnover being as a result of second sales. With regard to stray purchase from outside the State of Kerala for resale in this State the amount specified in the taxable turnover for the above year was Rs. 36,360, the tax thereon being Rs. 909. The return is placed on record at exhibit P2. 4. Thereafter it appears that the accounts were rejected by a pre-assessment notice dated September 13, 1995 refixing the turnover at Rs. 32,76,400. This was although the petitioner had not specified in return on the basis of inter-State sale and the proposal appear to be on the basis of collection of certain declarations and sale bills secured by the respondent from the check-post. A copy of this pre-assessment notice is placed on record at exhibit P3. It was thereafter, on the basis of check-post declarations and sale bills it appeared that the petitioner had effected inter-State sale of ammonium sulphate for a total value of Rs. 6,55,280. In regard to this the full address of the parties could not be ascertained as it was not given. The respondent, it is averred fixed a turnover in the nature of a fanciful figure stated above. 5. This pre-assessment notice granted seven days time to file reply which was hardly sufficient. Even then the petitioner submitted a reply dated September 22, 1995 placing on record that he had not effected the transaction in question and demanded copies of declarations collected with a further opportunity to participate in the proceeding. 5. This pre-assessment notice granted seven days time to file reply which was hardly sufficient. Even then the petitioner submitted a reply dated September 22, 1995 placing on record that he had not effected the transaction in question and demanded copies of declarations collected with a further opportunity to participate in the proceeding. The petitioner prayed further time of 10 days for filing a detailed reply. It appears that in these circumstances an assessment order is passed on September 25, 1995 irrespective of the objection and demanded opportunity. The order was served on October 4, 1995. A copy is placed at exhibit P6. 6. It is urged in the petitioner that there is denial of justice in view of the position that an order of assessment is effective only when it is communicated to the party as a result of participation process and otherwise it could not be said to have any effect earlier thereto. It is also urged that the respondent did not make any enquiry which is conditional before making the assessment. In this connection it is averred that even the name of the check-post is not found. It is submitted in the context that the practice of filing declarations by evaders is a well-known notorious fact, and in regard to which the necessary machinery to make a detailed investigation before fixing the liability on the petitioner is available, illustratively by virtue of section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act and the procedure contemplated under section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. 7. Learned Government Pleader has filed a statement and considering the statement it cannot be said that the impugned order is passed in compliance with the above principles as well as the rules of natural justice in the context. There is no again-saying that the assessment order has to be a process as a result of the participation of the assessee in question. Considering the facts and circumstances in the light of the above legal position and the principles of natural justice which are necessary to be followed apart from the statutory provisions referred to above, in may judgment the petition can be disposed of by the following order. Considering the facts and circumstances in the light of the above legal position and the principles of natural justice which are necessary to be followed apart from the statutory provisions referred to above, in may judgment the petition can be disposed of by the following order. The assessment order exhibit P6 gets quashed and set aside for the reasons recorded above and the proceedings are remitted to the respondent for commencing them de novo after following the principles of natural justice and the above provisions. The respondent is directed to give reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the process of assessment in the context, obviously after giving him prior notice after the present judgment. Petition stands disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 30105 of 1995 in O.P. No. 16637 of 1995 dismissed. Petition allowed.