M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THE point involved in these appeals is one of consequence. In so far as the impugned order that has been challenged, which is a composite order covering the assessment years 1985-86 to 1989-90 is concerned, it has been assailed by the appellants' learned advocate, principally on the ground that in his submission, there was no warrant for reopening the assessments that had been correctly concluded. Learned advocate submits that if the court were to peruse the assessment orders one by one, that it will be evident that the assessing officer did examine the records produced by the assessee and that he did also carefully and applied his mind. The submission that was canvassed by him is in relation to the quantity of the goods, which in these cases happen to be cigarettes and beedies, that were earmarked for consumption in the non-municipal areas. He further points out that if one were to look at the relevant figures for all the five years, that the application of mind on the part of the assessing officer will be evident. Even though in keeping with the books produced, certain claims were made for exemption on the ground that this consumption related to non-municipal area, the officer has not blindly accepted these figures but has revised them and found out as to whether what is exempted, is in fact correct. This submission has been canvassed by the learned advocate in support of his plea that it is a well-settled proposition of law, that the powers under section 15 of the Act, viz. , suo motu power to revise the assessment orders cannot be exercised unless valid and cogent reasons exist. Learned advocate submits that essentially the principle is that it must appear to the revisional authority that a substantial amount has escaped assessment and in order to arrive at this conclusion, it must be apparent from what had earlier taken place that there has either been suppression of material or that the assessing authority has either arbitrarily and summarily accepted the figures which are incorrect in relation to records or such other circumstances from which it is manifest that the assessment order is clearly erroneous. That argument proceeds on the footing that before a show cause notice can be issued under section 15, there must exist material on the basis of which the concerned authority can ask the assessee to show cause as to why higher tax should not be assessed. Learned advocate is critical of the procedure which undoubtedly is rather unusual. The revisional authority has issued a show cause notice to the appellant in which he has worked out the percentages of the sales in relation to municipal and non-municipal areas and in the tabulation he has pointed out that these percentages vary from 7. 83 per cent in 1985-86 to 5. 2 per cent in 1986-87, 2. 6 per cent in 1987-88, 1. 95 per cent in 1988-89 and 2. 47 per cent in 1989-90. The notice further proceeds on the footing that these figures are unrealistic. The notice in so many words sets out that the consumption of beedies and cigarettes in non-municipal areas is very much higher than in municipal areas and in any event, the authority has recorded the opinion that the ratio cannot be other than 50 : 50. ( 2 ) THE appellant's learned advocate has seriously assailed the show cause notice because it is his contention that there was no valid ground in the present case to issue such a notice and his second submission is that if a show cause notice under section 15 is to follow, that it must specifically lay down the grounds on which the authorities propose to revise the assessments and that the ground cannot be on the basis of arbitrary assumptions. The learned advocate points out that in the final order that followed, that the authority has entered into a very lengthy discussion and has finally come to the conclusion that the non-municipal area sales must be fixed at 40 per cent and has levied the tax accordingly. There is a serious challenge to the validity of this finding which is again two-fold, the first aspect being that it is absolutely arbitrary and the second being that it is totally impermissible in law because there is no finding recorded by the authority that the books of accounts that were produced and which were assessed by the Entry Tax Officer in the first instance, were either false or manipulated. Learned advocate therefore submits that even though the issue of the show cause notice itself is bad in law, that the final order will have to be quashed because regardless of the validity or otherwise of the show cause notice that the order passed against his client is impossible to sustain. ( 3 ) AS far as the aspect of issuance of the notice under section 15 of the Act is concerned, the learned counsel who represents the department submits that in a case where the revising authority comes to the conclusion that a certain amount of tax has escaped assessment that it is permissible to issue a show cause notice because that is only the starting point of the exercise and it is open to the assessee to point out that there may be no valid ground on which higher tax should be levied. The learned advocate submits that having regard to the various circumstances, where the returns filed are glaringly at variance, that alone can be a ground for revision. He also submits that as far as the final order is concerned, that if through a process of due investigation that has taken place, the department is formally of the view that there exists a certain percentage as far as the consumption pattern is concerned, that it is open to the department to apply that figure where the assessee has not produced true and correct facts. In this regard there are extensive references made in the final order to an intelligence report which is not only a generalised report but also references to certain specific facts as far as the present assessee is concerned. He submits that without any basis, the revising authority was required to issue a show cause notice and furthermore that there was virtually a yawning gap between what according to the department is a fair estimation of the consumption pattern and what was reflected in the records produced by the assessee and that the revising authority has gone by the latter. He therefore submits that no interference is called for. ( 4 ) WE need to record here that as far as the reference to the intelligence reports are concerned, that the appellant's learned counsel has seriously found fault with them. He therefore submits that no interference is called for. ( 4 ) WE need to record here that as far as the reference to the intelligence reports are concerned, that the appellant's learned counsel has seriously found fault with them. He submits that if the department for its own guidance decides to do certain research and if the result of the research is proposed to be used against an assessee for enhancing the tax, then it is very necessary that copies of the reports must be made available to the assessee and this must form the basis of the show cause notice. We see considerable force in this submission because it is a basic tenet which emanates from the rules of natural justice that before passing an order to the prejudice of the assessee, that the assessee must be given a full and fair opportunity of dealing with all such material, such as intelligence reports, which the department is proposing to use against the assessee. In our considered view, that principle has been totally breached in the present case. Not only is there a reference to the intelligence report in the show cause notice but on the other hand it forms the substantial basis for the final order that has been passed against the assessee without they having been aware of this order. ( 5 ) AS far as the main challenge is concerned, we do see considerable substance in the challenge that has been presented by the appellant's learned advocate. What the learned advocate points out, and perhaps with considerable justification, is that none of the earlier findings had been carelessly recorded. He relies on the fact that when the returns were filed by his clients, they themselves indicated certain figures and if one were to scrutinise them, the ultimate assessment figures were very close to the ones that were reflected in the returns. At this stage, the assessing officer did do some recalculation, but there was no finding recorded by him that the books of accounts maintained were incorrect. Reliance is also placed by the learned advocate on the fact that there are no similar findings recorded by the revisional authority. At this stage, the assessing officer did do some recalculation, but there was no finding recorded by him that the books of accounts maintained were incorrect. Reliance is also placed by the learned advocate on the fact that there are no similar findings recorded by the revisional authority. He therefore submitted that the starting point for the issuance of the show cause notice under section 15 was itself non-existent and that this Court will have to hold that if the issuance of the show cause notice was unjustified, the finding that followed thereafter will have to be quashed. As far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, though on the facts of the present case there may be some cause for grievance, we are unable to hold that there was absolutely no justification for the issuance of the show cause notice. The show cause notice was not clearly drafted and the assessee was not made known as to what precisely the department's case was. To that extent, the show cause notice, in our considered view, was faulty. There was ground to hold that the assessment was incorrect, and hence the exercise of power under section 15 was valid. ( 6 ) AS far as the impugned order is concerned, undoubtedly it will have to be set aside on the ground that no material has been incorporated in the order, and the finding is based on an intelligence report and other facts which were not specifically made known to the assessee and they were not confronted with. At one part of the order, there is a specific statement that goods worth a substantial amount of money were unloaded. If such material was proposed to be used in a revision proceeding, then the assessees ought to have been confronted with it so that they could have put forward their explanation. We see considerable justification in the plea that the final order that has been passed cannot be sustained on the basis that the appellants did not have specific notice. Having regard to this situation, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Normally, we would have let the matter rest at that, but the position that emerges is that a scrutiny of the record indicates to us that the department was possessed with certain material on the basis of which the ultimate conclusion has been arrived at. Having regard to this situation, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Normally, we would have let the matter rest at that, but the position that emerges is that a scrutiny of the record indicates to us that the department was possessed with certain material on the basis of which the ultimate conclusion has been arrived at. In the returns filed and the figures and the records produced before the department, the assessees may not have reflected the correct state of affairs. This is the most that we can say because it appears from the ultimate order passed by the revisional authority that the department was of the view that higher tax was payable and even though, there is no finding to that effect that the records were incorrect, the authority has proceeded to pass orders on the basis of what he felt was a reasonable estimation. We need to observe here that before following that procedure, a situation will have to be arrived at whereunder there would have been ground for the authority to hold that the records do not represent the correct facts. It is in this background that we are of the view that the appellant must be given a fresh opportunity of meeting whatever material the department proposes to use against them. In these circumstances, the cases are remanded to the revisional authority with a direction that a fresh and properly drafted show cause notice be served upon the assessee. This procedure be completed within a period of three months from today. Thereafter, the assessee shall be given time to file the reply and to contest the correctness of the proposed action. The appeals accordingly succeed to this extent and stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.