JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by P. A. MOHAMMED, J. - This tax revision case has been filed by a registered dealer under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). For the assessment year 1985-86 the petitioner who is a dealer in coconuts, filed return in form 8 declaring the total and taxable turnover of Rs. 18,16,948.60 and Rs. 9,69,965.60 respectively. In support of the said return the account books were produced before the assessing authority. After scrutiny of the accounts, the assessing authority noticed various defects in the accounts and therefore found them incorrect and incomplete. In view of this reason, the the assessing authority issued a notice under section 17(3) of the Act proposing to reject the accounts and to complete the assessment on best of judgment. Though the assessee was allowed time to file objections he did not file any objection against the proposal contained in the notice. Consequently, the assessing authority completed the assessment for the aforesaid year as proposed by it in the pre-assessment notice. While completing the assessment the officer has added a total turnover of Rs. 4,20,135 towards alleged omissions and suppressions which includes an estimated purchase turnover of Rs. 2,00,000. 2. As against the aforesaid assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as S.T.A. No. (Apy) 737 of 1988. The first appellate authority by the order dated August 11, 1988 upheld the rejection of accounts. Further it deleted the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 made towards the purchase turnover. However, the remaining addition of Rs. 2,20,135 made by the assessing authority was confirmed. Both the assessee and Revenue being dissatisfied with the said order filed appeals before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also confirmed the rejection of accounts. However, the deletion of turnover of Rs. 2,00,000 made by the first appellate authority was set aside by the Tribunal and thus allowed the State appeal. While doing so, the Tribunal found the additions made by the assessing authority are justified in view of the grievous nature of the defects noticed in the accounts. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal filed this tax revision case before this Court. 3. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal filed this tax revision case before this Court. 3. The sum and substance of the argument advanced by the counsel for the assessee is that the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should be restored. His plea is that the additions made by the officer towards omissions and suppression is liable to be deleted. He maintains that the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 towards the omission to produce the originals of the delivery note is a "double punishment" as far as the assessee is concerned. On the other hand, the Government Pleader makes a formidable plea that the order passed by the assessing authority should be confirmed. He points out that this is a case where the misuse of delivery notes has been established. Therefore, he pleads that the additions made by the assessing authority be maintained. 4. In view of the rival contentions putforth by the parties, we feel that three points set out hereunder are required to be decided in this case : (1) Whether the initiation of the proceedings under section 17(3) of the Act is justified in the facts of the present case ? (2) Whether there is misuse of delivery notes and the addition of the turnover of Rs. 2,00,000 under that account is justified ? (3) Whether the further addition of Rs. 2,20,135 is supported by any basis or material ? 5. Section 17(3) of the Act is as follows : "(3) If no return is submitted by the dealer under sub-section (1) within the prescribed period, or if the return submitted by him appears to the assessing authority to be incorrect or incomplete, the assessing authority shall, after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary and after taking into account all relevant materials gathered by it, assess the dealer to the best of its judgment : Provided that before taking action under this sub-section the dealer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and, where a return has been submitted to prove the correctness or completeness of such return." Issue of a pre-assessment notice is sine qua non in the process of passing an assessment order under best of judgment under the above provision. It has a definite purpose to perform. The receipt of pre-assessment notice by the assessee is the first available opportunity for him to file objection against the proposal to complete the assessment on best of judgment and to explain the defects pointed out in the accounts. Therefore, when the assessee has received this notice it is for him to file objections if the proposal is against him or to request for time to file the objection if there is any reason. In case the assessee after the receipt of the notice keeps silent by not filing the objection or not requesting further time in that behalf, the natural presumption is that assessee has no grievance against the proposal contained in the notice. 6. The assessee has no case that he has not received the pre-assessment notice in this case. He has also no case that he has not been granted adequate time to file the objections. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has received the pre-assessment notice. No explanation is forthcoming from the assessee as to why he has not field the reply to the said notice. Even before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or before the Tribunal the assessee is not seen to have explained any reasons for not filing the reply to the pre-assessment notice. Even before this Court while considering this case the assessee has not come forward with any reasons in that behalf. We are of the firm view that non-filing of a reply to the pre-assessment notice is very fatal to the case of an assessee against whom proceedings under section 17(3) of the Act is initiated. In the aforesaid background, we are constrained to hold that the rejection of the accounts by the assessing authority and consequent initiation of the proceeding under section 17(3) of the Act is valid and sustainable. We do not also find any warranting circumstance to alter or modify the said proposal initiated by the assessing authority at this stage. 7. We will now advert to the alleged misuse of delivery note by the assessee. The delivery note is an indispensible document made available to the dealers in carrying on the business transactions intra-State as well as inter-State. This is the document usually accompanying the transport of goods. 7. We will now advert to the alleged misuse of delivery note by the assessee. The delivery note is an indispensible document made available to the dealers in carrying on the business transactions intra-State as well as inter-State. This is the document usually accompanying the transport of goods. The transport of goods within the State by a dealer is prohibited unless he is in possession of a delivery note or way bill or sale bill. Sub-rule (18) of rule 32 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 deals with preparation of delivery note supplied by the assessing authority. It is reproduced hereunder : "(18) Every such delivery note shall be prepared in triplicate (the duplicate and triplicate being carbon copies of the original) serially machine numbered shall be kept in book form and shall be duly signed and dated by the consigning dealer or his manager or authorised agent and the original of it shall be furnished to the assessing authority concerned, the duplicate shall be retained by the purchasing dealer or the person to whom the goods are delivered for transporting and the triplicate shall be retained by the consigning dealer." What the above sub-rule intends is to have a safeguard against clandestine transactions. Every dealer to whom the delivery note is issued has to produce its original to the assessing authority concerned and the non-submission of such used delivery note will result in penal consequences. 8. If there is a loss, destruction or theft of delivery note, the same shall be immediately reported to the assessing authority. This is provided in rule 33A which deals with safe custody and preservation of delivery note. Sub-rule (1) and (2) of the said rule which are relevant for the present purpose are extracted below : "(1) The delivery note in form 26 obtained from the assessing authority by a dealer shall be kept in safe custody and he shall be personally responsible for the loss, destruction or theft of any such note or the loss of revenue to Government, if any, resulting directly or indirectly from such theft, loss or destruction. (2) Every dealer to whom any delivery note is issued by an assessing authority shall maintain, in a register in form 19B, a true and complete account of every such note if any such note is lost, destroyed or stolen, the dealer shall report the fact to the assessing authority immediately, make appropriate entries in the remarks column of the said register and take such other steps to issue public notice of the loss, destruction or theft as the assessing authority may direct." The above sub-rules sufficiently provide the care and caution a dealer has to employ in having the custody of the delivery note and its use in the regular course of business transactions. In order to safeguard the custody and use of delivery notes, the dealer shall maintain a register in form No. 19B. 9. An estimated addition of Rs. 2,00,000 has been made by the assessing authority for the reason that the originals of the delivery notes bearing serial Nos. 653201 to 653250 obtained by the dealer from the assessing authority have not been produced. The above delivery notes were obtained by the dealer on March 15, 1985. These delivery notes were seen to have been used for the transport of the coconuts to Tamil Nadu. The declaration received from the sales tax check-post, Ariankavu shows that the dealer has used the delivery note No. 653220 on March 29, 1986 for the transport of the coconut to Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the officer made an inference that the dealer has utilised same delivery notes for the transport of the coconuts the purchase of which has not been accounted. The assessee has no case that the delivery notes obtained by him has been lost or destroyed in any manner. He has not produced the register in form No. 19B which is maintained as required under sub-rule (2) of rule 33A. It is therefore not possible to ascertain the correct picture as to the custody of the delivery notes. No explanation is forthcoming from the assessee for the non-submission of the originals of the delivery notes before the assessing authority. The dealer is legally obliged to give the details regarding the use of the delivery notes in the regular course of business because then only the clandestine transaction, if any, can be detected. No explanation is forthcoming from the assessee for the non-submission of the originals of the delivery notes before the assessing authority. The dealer is legally obliged to give the details regarding the use of the delivery notes in the regular course of business because then only the clandestine transaction, if any, can be detected. When the dealer failed to produce the originals of the delivery notes and in the absence of any explanation thereto, it cannot be said that the officer is unjustified in having an inference that the assessee has used these delivery notes for transport of the coconuts to Tamil Nadu. In other words, it could be said that the assessee had misused the delivery notes and thus engaged in clandestine transport involving unaccounted purchases and sales. It is pertinent to note in this context that the assessee very tactfully remained silent when this material irregularity was pointed out to him in the pre-assessment notice. That would mean that the assessee had impliedly agreed to the addition proposed by the officer. 10. The counsel for the assessee argues that the above addition of Rs. 2,00,000 amounts to "double punishment" as observed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. His case is that the transaction covered by delivery note No. 653220 dated March 29, 1986 was involved Rs. 22,500 and that was included in the addition of Rs. 2,20,135. Of course, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has deleted the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 which deletion had been severely challenged by the Government Pleader. As far as we could see the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 is an independent addition unconnected with the alleged omission and suppression. That was an addition obviously for the misuse of delivery notes obtained on March 15, 1985 bearing Serial Nos. 653201 to 653250. In order to pinpoint the misuse the officer has given an instance showing the use of the delivery note No. 653220 on March 29, 1986. 11. The only question now remains is to find out whether there is any basis for further addition of Rs. 2,20,135. In addition to the suppression detected in relation to the delivery note No. 653220 dated March 29, 1986 the officer has pointed out two other unaccounted purchases involving the use of two delivery notes on March 10, 1986. The value of the coconuts involved in the unaccounted transport made on March 10, 1986 and March 29, 1986 is Rs. 2,20,135. In addition to the suppression detected in relation to the delivery note No. 653220 dated March 29, 1986 the officer has pointed out two other unaccounted purchases involving the use of two delivery notes on March 10, 1986. The value of the coconuts involved in the unaccounted transport made on March 10, 1986 and March 29, 1986 is Rs. 70,912. These transport were made through the check-post at Walayar and Ariankavu. Those three instances were noticed by the officer while scrutinising the accounts for the period 1985-86. That relates to the transactions only in respect of two days in the month of March, 1986. The assessing authority points out, that was a peak period as far as the sale of coconuts to outside the State is concerned. In view of the aforesaid defects the assessing authority came to the conclusion that there were suppressions and omissions in the sales and purchases. Therefore the addition of Rs. 2,20,135 was made towards unaccounted inter-State sales. It cannot be said that there was no basis for the aforesaid addition. The Tribunal points out that value of a day's suppression alone would come to Rs. 48,412 and there would be such suppressions during the rest of the year. Therefore the Tribunal further observed that in view of the huge volume of such suppression detected for two days, three times addition would be on lower side. It cannot therefore be said that the assessee had not engaged in similar kind of suppression during the rest of the year. 12. The position being so crystalline we have no hesitation to hold that the additions made by the officer towards the omission and suppression is reasonable in the facts of this case. We are also fortified in holding so for the reason that the assessee had not raised any objection against the said addition when it was put to him at the pre-assessment stage. In that view of the matter we are inclined to confirm the order of the Tribunal. The said order is not in any way erroneous or illegal. What is contained in the said order is factual findings on appreciation of evidence. The tax revision case is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.