JUDGMENT D. N. CHOWDHURY, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order of assessment dated November 10, 1993 under section 17(1) read with section 17(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 for the period July and August, 1993, vide annexure X to the writ petition. 2. Sequel to the aforesaid assessment respondent No. 3 [the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery) and Bakijai Officer, Guwahati] issued notice No. 1960-61 dated January 20, 1994 directing the petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs. 1,27,20,892 within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice and notice No. 2107 dated February 9, 1994 issued by the respondent No. 3 directing the petitioner to appear personally on February 23, 1994, for default of payment of the aforesaid sum. The said two notices are also assailed in this proceeding. 3. The petitioner averred that he at the relevant time was carrying on the business of purchase and sale of lottery tickets as the sole proprietor in the name and style of M/s. Vikash Agency having place of business at Paltanbazar, Guwahati, in the district of Kamrup. The petitioner also dealt in purchase and sale of various daily lotteries organised and run by the State of Assam under different names. It was also averred that sale of lottery tickets was made exigible to tax under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 with effect from July 1, 1993. 4. The Superintendent of Taxes, Guwahati, Unit-C, by letter dated August 2, 1993 communicated the petitioner about the information that was available before him about the sale of tickets of Rs. 2,65,21,922 with effect from July 1, 1993 to July 31, 1993. The Superintendent of Taxes also informed that the sale of lottery tickets attracts the liability under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 with effect from July 1, 1993 at the rate of 10 per cent as per item No. 94 (of Schedule II) of the Act and he was to apply for registration. By the said letter it was also made known to the petitioner about the statutory requirement of registration by July 31, 1993. The petitioner was accordingly advised to apply for registration and get himself registered immediately. He was also to deposit the taxes due for the month of July 1993 immediately. By the said letter it was also made known to the petitioner about the statutory requirement of registration by July 31, 1993. The petitioner was accordingly advised to apply for registration and get himself registered immediately. He was also to deposit the taxes due for the month of July 1993 immediately. The petitioner accordingly applied for the registration and a certificate of registration in form III was issued in his favour making him liable to pay tax with effect from July 1, 1993. The Superintendent of Taxes issued a notice dated September 28, 1993, asking the petitioner to show cause in writing and to appear personally before the said officer on October 5, 1993 as to why the penalty should not be imposed under the Act for his failure to submit the return with full payment for the months of July and August, 1993 inspite of issue of reminder. By notice No. Gau(C)/C-6/10819(A) date October 1, 1993 the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be assessed summarily to the best of his judgment as per the provisions of the Act in addition to penalty for his failure to submit returns with full payment for the months of July and August, 1993 in spite of notice issued on him. The Superintendent of Taxes by his notice dated October 8, 1993 advised the petitioner once again to submit the return within October 14, 1993 and the said notice is quoted below : "Sub : Notice against summary assessment and imposition of penalty. Whereas as per provision of the AGST Act, 1993 you are to submit return with admitted taxes for the months of July, 1993 and August, 1993 and the due date for submission of returns for the aforesaid month are two last date of the following month as contemplated under section 16 of the AGST Act, 1993 read with rule 25. But in spite of your liability and inspite of sufficient time allowed vide the office Notice No. 10924(A) dated July 1, 1993, do No. 10687(A) dated September 29, 1993, do No. 101819(A) dated October 1, 1993, you have failed to submit the return. Whereas you have assured this office that you will pay the entire amount to tax together with return within October 14, 1993. Whereas you have assured this office that you will pay the entire amount to tax together with return within October 14, 1993. Whereas, you are hereby asked once again to submit the return within October 14, 1993, else the assessment will be completed with T.O. noted below without further reference to you. Taxable turnover July, 1993 ... Rs. 2,65,21,922 August, 1993 ... Rs. 3,00,00,000 Further you will be imposed penalty under section 23(c) for non-submission of return which may please be noted." By letter dated October 14, 1993 the petitioner explained his position and stated that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and accordingly asked the authority to drop the proceedings of summary assessment and imposition of penalty and to allow 20 days time for payment of tax and submission of the returns. The petitioner submitted two returns on November 6, 1993 and paid tax at 2 per cent instead of 10 per cent. By an order dated November 10, 1993 the assessing officer made summary assessment under section 17(5) read with section 17(1) of the Act. Pursuant to the aforesaid assessment order notice of demand in form No. XI under rule 31 of the Rules for payment of Rs. 1,27,20,891 on account of tax and penalty on or before December 10, 1993 was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter the Superintendent to Taxes (Recovery) and Bakijai Officer, Guwahati, initiated recovery proceeding and issued notice dated January 20, 1994, February 9, 1994 (annexures XII and XIV) respectively. The legality of the assessment proceeding is therefore assailed in this proceeding. 5. Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, impugned the assessment proceeding as illegal and without jurisdiction. According to Dr. Saraf by notice No. 11537(A) dated November 1, 1993 the petitioner was allowed time to submit return for the months of July, August and September, 1993 within November 6, 1993 and consequently the petitioner submitted his return on November 6, 1993. It is a case where the petitioner submitted his return. The assessing officer fell into serious error by not taking into account the aforesaid return in his order dated November 10, 1993 and proceeded with the case summarily and also with the impression that the petitioner failed to submit his return. The order thus showed total non-application of mind and mechanical exercise of power, submitted Dr. Saraf. The assessing officer fell into serious error by not taking into account the aforesaid return in his order dated November 10, 1993 and proceeded with the case summarily and also with the impression that the petitioner failed to submit his return. The order thus showed total non-application of mind and mechanical exercise of power, submitted Dr. Saraf. Since the petitioner submitted its return the assessing officer was required to act under sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act or otherwise the assessing officer was to proceed under sub-section (3) of section 17 and serve notice on him in prescribed form to appear before him or to produce or cause to be produced any evidence on which he may rely in support of his return. The assessing officer instead of following the mandate of the statute arbitrarily took resort to sub-section (5) of section 17 of the Act and made summary assessment. Dr. Saraf also assailed the legitimacy of the aforesaid proceeding. In support of his contention Dr. Saraf relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Dwijendra Kumar Bhattacharjee v. Superintendent of Taxes, Government of Tripura, reported in [1990] 78 STC 393; (1989) 2 GLR 460. 6. Mr. H. N. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of the respondents, firstly questioned the maintainability of the writ proceeding in view of the alternative and efficacious remedy provided by the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. According to Mr. H. N. Sarma when the statute provided a remedy under the law and the appellate authority was in a best position to evaluate both factual and legal aspects of the matter there cannot be justification for invoking the writ jurisdiction by this Court and Mr. Sarma further supported the case on merit by referring and relying on the records of the proceeding. Mr. Sarma in support of his contention referred to the decisions reported in (1996) 11 SCC 648 and the case reported in AIR 1968 Assam and Nagaland 5 (Sohanraj Singvi v. Commissioner of Taxes). 7. From the record it appears that on receipt of the report of the Inspector of Taxes, the Superintendent of Taxes issued the letter dated August 2, 1993 (annexure I to the writ petition). 7. From the record it appears that on receipt of the report of the Inspector of Taxes, the Superintendent of Taxes issued the letter dated August 2, 1993 (annexure I to the writ petition). By order dated August 26, 1993 the application of the petitioner for registration as dealer was accepted and the petitioner was accordingly registered as a dealer under section 11(3) of the Act fixing the date of liability with effect from July 1, 1993. The petitioner was thereafter advised to submit his return for the months of July and August, 1993, vide notice dated September 17, 1993. By the said notice the petitioner was informed about his failure to submit return with full payment for the said two months inspite of the reminder issued to him. The petitioner was accordingly asked to show cause in writing and appear in person before the Superintendent of Taxes on October 5, 1993 at 11 a.m. as to why penalty should not be imposed on him under the Act. Similar notice was issued to the petitioner on September 28, 1993. From the record it appears that on behalf of the petitioner a cheque dated September 21, 1993 for Rs. 15,000 was sent to the Superintendent of Taxes being taxes for the month of July, 1993. The Superintendent noted the aforesaid fact and ordered the dealer to file monthly return for July and August, 1993 with full payment of the taxes. The Superintendent also noted the fact that the dealer deposited a negligible amount to tax as advance for July, 1993. Notices were accordingly issued to the petitioner vide notice dated October 1, 1993 in the following terms : "Sub : Show cause against non-submission of return and imposition of penalty. Ref : This office letter No. 10324(A) dated September 17, 1993 " No. 10687(D) dated September 28, 1993 It appears that you have failed to submit returns with full payment for the months of July and August, 1993 in spite of above notices issued to you. Therefore, you are required to show cause in writing and appearing personally before the undersigned on October 7, 1993 at 11 a.m. as to why you will not be assessed summarily to the best of my judgment as per provision of the AGST Act, 1993 in addition with penalty as per provision of the Act." 8. Therefore, you are required to show cause in writing and appearing personally before the undersigned on October 7, 1993 at 11 a.m. as to why you will not be assessed summarily to the best of my judgment as per provision of the AGST Act, 1993 in addition with penalty as per provision of the Act." 8. On October 4, 1993 one Mahendra Nahata, brother of the proprietor appeared before the Superintendent of Taxes and prayed for time on the ground of absence of the proprietor out of Assam. However, the Superintendent insisted the said Mahendra Nahata to pay advance tax along with return. He agreed to submit up to date return along with payment of tax within 4 days. The Superintendent directed him to pay advance tax on the said date as far as practicable. 9. The Superintendent of Taxes issued the notice dated October 8, 1993, in the following manner : "Sub : Notice against summary assessment and imposition of penalty. Whereas as per provision of the AGST Act, 1993 you are to submit return with admitted taxes for the month of July, 1993 and August, 1993 and the due date for submission of returns for the aforesaid month are two last date of the following month as contemplated under section 16 of the AGST Act, 1993 read with rule 25. But in spite of you liability and in spite of sufficient time allowed vide the office Notice No. 10924(A) dated July 1, 1993, do. No. 10687(A) dated September 29, 1993, do. No. 10819(A) dated October 1, 1993, you have failed to submit the return. Whereas you have assured this office that you will pay the entire amount of tax together with on return within October 14, 1993. Whereas, you are hereby asked once again to submit the return within October 14, 1993, else the assessment will be completed with T.O. noted below without further reference to you. Taxable turnover July, 1993 ... Rs. 2,65,21,922 August, 1993 ... Rs. 3,00,00,000 Further you will be imposed penalty under section 23(c) for non-submission of return which may please be noted." On October 14, 1993 Sri Matilal Jain, Manager of the firm, attended the Office of the Superintendent of Taxes with a prayer application for extension of time on the grounds set out therein. Rs. 2,65,21,922 August, 1993 ... Rs. 3,00,00,000 Further you will be imposed penalty under section 23(c) for non-submission of return which may please be noted." On October 14, 1993 Sri Matilal Jain, Manager of the firm, attended the Office of the Superintendent of Taxes with a prayer application for extension of time on the grounds set out therein. The Superintendent of Taxes accordingly extended the date for filing of return with full payment of taxes on or before October 27, 1993. It was further ordered that in case of failure, action would be taken as per notice dated October 8, 1993. The order dated October 14, 1993 was passed in presence of Matilal Jain who put his signature in the order sheet. Another application on behalf of the petitioner was submitted to the Superintendent of Taxes dated October 22, 1993 praying for extension of time. The said application was considered and the Superintendent of Taxes passed the following order : "November 1, 1993 : Seen the prayer petition of the dealer for extension of time for 20 days. The dealer already availed time twice. However in consideration of the genuineness of the cause for extension of time also in consideration that he would file the return up to september, 1993, he is asked to submit the up to date return within November 6, 1993 without fail." The petitioner was informed accordingly vide notice dated November 1, 1993 allowing him time to submit return for the months of July, August and September, 1993 with full payment within November 6, 1993 positively. The petitioner submitted return for the months of July and August paying taxes without making the full payment under the Act. No return for the month of September was furnished. The assessing officer noted the return and observed in the order sheet as "the return submitted without full payment of admitted tax. Hence assessed ex parte". The assessing officer made his assessment by a reasoned order dated November 10, 1993. The assessing officer recounted about the earlier notice on the petitioner giving him the opportunity to submit the return and on his failure to submit the return in accordance with law the assessing officer proceeded to assess the dealer ex parte under section 17(5) read with section 17(1) of the Act. The assessing officer recounted about the earlier notice on the petitioner giving him the opportunity to submit the return and on his failure to submit the return in accordance with law the assessing officer proceeded to assess the dealer ex parte under section 17(5) read with section 17(1) of the Act. The assessing officer also noted that the dealer was given a further chance quoting the turnover to be assessed and also to impose penalty as contemplated under section 23(c) of the Act vide office Memo No. Gau(C)/C-6/11053(A) dated October 8, 1993. This time also the dealer did not comply. So there was no other way than to complete the assessment ex parte under section 17(5) read with section 17(1) of the Act. 10. The Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 was enacted to amalgamate, consolidate and amend the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 relating to levy of tax on the sale and purchase of goods in the State of Assam. Chapter III of the Act contains the incidence and levy of tax. The liability of tax is envisaged in section 7 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 7 enjoins that subject to the other provisions of the Act every dealer to whom sub-section (1) does not apply, shall be liable to pay tax under the Act on all sales or purchases of goods other than goods specified in Schedule I with effect from the date immediately following the date on which his gross turnover calculated from the commencement of any year ending after the appointed day first exceeds the taxable quantum at any time within such year : Provided that such dealer shall not be liable to pay any tax under this Act during such year in respect of his turnover up to the taxable quantum. 11. Section 8 contains the charge of tax and rates. Under section 8(1)(a) the tax leviable under section 7 for any year shall be charged on the taxable turnover during such year in respect of goods specified in Schedule II at the first point of sale within the State, at the rate or rates specified in that Schedule. In the said Schedule at entry No. 94, lottery tickets is also a specified item and the rate specified is 10 paise in the rupee. 12. In the said Schedule at entry No. 94, lottery tickets is also a specified item and the rate specified is 10 paise in the rupee. 12. Chapter IV relates to the procedure of registration of dealers and Chapter V contains the provisions for return, assessment and reassessment. The payment of tax and return is envisaged in section 16 and the provisions of assessment is contained in section 17 which are quoted below : "16(1) Tax payable under this Act shall be paid in such manner and at such intervals as may be prescribed : Provided that different intervals may be prescribed for different categories of dealers. (2) Any payment of tax made under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a statement in the prescribed form of the turnover of sales or of purchases in respect of which the tax is paid. (3) Every registered dealer and every dealer who may be required so to do by the assessing officer by notice issued in the prescribed manner shall furnish in addition to the statement or statements if any furnished under sub-section (2) an annual return in the prescribed form accompanied by such statement as may be prescribed within such time as may be prescribed : Provided that the State Government may by rules framed in this behalf require any dealer or class or classes of dealer to file, apart from the annual return, a quarterly return in such form, in such manner and within such time-limit as may be prescribed. (4) If any dealer has not furnished a return within the time allowed under sub-section (3) or, having furnished a return under that sub-section, discovers any omission or other error therein, he may without prejudice to the charge of any interest or penalty under Chapter VI furnish a return or revised return, as the case may be, at any time before the assessment is made and such return shall be accompanied by receipt showing payment of tax due, if any, on the basis of such return. (5) Every return under this section shall be signed and verified in the prescribed manner, - (a) in the case of an individual, by the individual himself, and where the individual is absent from India by the individual concerned or by some person duly authorised by him in this behalf and where the individual is mentally incapacitated from attending to his affairs by his guardian or by any other person competent to act on his behalf; (b) in the case of a Hindu undivided family by the karta and where the karta is absent from India or is mentally incapacitated from attending to his affairs by any other adult member of such family; (c) in any case of a company or local authority, by the principal officer thereof; (d) in the case of any other association, by any member of the association or the principal officer thereof; and (e) in the case of any other person, by that person or by some person competent to act on his behalf. 17(1) The amount of tax payable by a dealer under this Act shall ordinarily be assessed separately for each year : Provided that the assessing officer, if he considers it necessary so to do, subject to rules, if any made in this behalf make an assessment of the tax due from any dealers for a part of the year or a provisional or advance assessment on the basis of the estimated turnover before the expiry of any year. (2) Where a return has been furnished under section 16, the assessing officer may, in the case of such classes of registered dealer as may be prescribed and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, make an assessment of the tax payable by the dealer on the basis of the return furnished by him and the documents accompanying such return, without requiring the presence of the dealer or the production by him of any evidence in support of the return. (3) The assessing officer may - (a) in a case where an assessment has been made under sub-section (2), subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, and (b) in a case not falling under sub-section (2) where a return has been furnished, serve on the dealer a notice in the prescribed form requiring him on the date and at the place specified therein, to appear before him and to produce or cause to be produced any evidence on which he may rely in support of his return, or produce or cause to be produced such accounts or documents as the assessing officer my specify in such notice. (4) On the day specified in the notice issued under sub-section (3) or as soon afterwards as may be, after considering such evidence as the assessee may produce and such other evidence on specified points as the assessing officer may, in the course of the hearing require and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered, make an assessment or, in a case where an assessment has been made under sub-section (2) a fresh assessment of the tax payable by the dealer. (5) If a dealer fails to furnish a return as required under section 16 or having furnished the return, fails to comply with all the terms of the notice issued under sub-section (3), the Assessing Officer may, to the best of his judgment assess the dealer and determine the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment : Provided that before making assessment the assessing officer may allow the dealer such further time as he thinks fit to furnish the return or to comply with the terms of the notice issue sub-section (3). (6) If upon information which has come into his possession the assessing officer is satisfied that any dealer who is liable to pay taxes under this Act for any period has failed to get himself registered in the manner provided in Chapter IV or otherwise has remained unregistered, he may, serve a notice on the dealer and after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of tax due from such dealer for such period. (7) A notice issued under sub-section (6) may contain all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-section (3) of section 16 and the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be applied accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section." 13. In exercise of power conferred under section 72 of the Act a set of rules is made by the Governor of Assam which is called as Assam General Sales Tax Rules, 1993. The submission of return and payment of tax is prescribed in rule 25 and the procedure after assessment is prescribed in rule 29, the relevant portion of which are extracted below : "25(1) Every registered dealer or any dealer liable to pay tax, whose taxable turnover as referred to in sub-section (3), of section 8 in any assessment year exceeds rupees 2(two) lakh, shall, before the expiry of the next succeeding month, submit to the assessing officer a monthly statement in form V. Such statement shall be accompanied by a receipt from the Government treasury, a crossed cheque or a crossed demand draft for the full amount of tax payable on his taxable turnover during the month to which the statement relates. Explanation. - For the purpose of sub-rule (1), the due date for submission of the monthly statement for a particular month shall be the last date of the following month. (2) Every registered dealer or any dealer liable to pay tax under the Act, other than a dealer referred to in sub-rule (1) shall submit to the assessing officer for the quarter ending June 30, September 30, December 31 and March 31, within a month of the expiry of the quarter concerned, a statement of his turnover in form V together with a receipt showing payment of tax due. Explanation. - For the purpose of sub-rule (2), the due date for submission of the quarterly statement for a particular statement for a particular quarter shall be the last date of the month following the quarter. (3)(a) If the amount paid by a dealer along with statement under sub-rule (1) is less than the amount of tax payable by him, the assessing officer shall serve a notice of demand and the dealer shall pay the sum demanded in the said notice within the time and in the manner specified in the notice. (3)(a) If the amount paid by a dealer along with statement under sub-rule (1) is less than the amount of tax payable by him, the assessing officer shall serve a notice of demand and the dealer shall pay the sum demanded in the said notice within the time and in the manner specified in the notice. (b) If no such statement is submitted by a dealer under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) before the due date or if the statement furnished by him appears to the assessing officer incorrect and incomplete, the assessing officer may assess the dealer provisionally for that month or quarter, as the case may be, to the best of his judgment, recording the reason for such assessment and proceed to demand and collect the tax accordingly : Provided that before taking action under this clause the dealer shall be given an opportunity of being heard. (4) Every dealer as mentioned in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) in addition to the statements furnished, shall submit an annual return in form VI giving in annexures, I II and III thereof, detailed information in respect of each category of goods in which he carries on business within two months after the close of the year to which the return relates. Explanation. - For the purpose of sub-rule (4), the due date of submission of the annual return for a particular year shall be the thirty-first day of the month of May of the following year : Provided that the assessing officer may call for quarterly or half-yearly return from a dealer, for reasons to be recorded in writing, before expiry of a year along with full payment of tax on the basis of such return. ............ (9) The returns required to be furnished under sub-section (3) of section 16 shall be furnished in the manner indicated in sub-rule (4) and for such period and within such time as may be specified in the notice ........... 29. ............ (9) The returns required to be furnished under sub-section (3) of section 16 shall be furnished in the manner indicated in sub-rule (4) and for such period and within such time as may be specified in the notice ........... 29. (1) In case of a dealer whose tax liability in any assessment year does not exceed rupees of twenty-five thousand and who furnished correct and complete returns in respect of two immediately preceding assessment years, the assessing officer may make an assessment ordinarily accepting return and document furnished without requiring the dealer to produce any evidence in support of his return, if the return is prima facie correct and complete : Provided that the assessing officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, even after such assessment has been made, serve on such a dealer a notice in form X calling upon the dealer to produce certain accounts in support of the return furnished before expiry of two years from the date of assessment, if on inspection of the business premises of the dealer or otherwise, he has reason to believe that the dealer has suppressed a part or whole of the turnover of his business or that the dealer is evading the payment of tax : Provided further that the return shall not be so accepted if the taxable turnover returned for the relevant year does not exceed at least by twenty per cent over the taxable turnover determined for the immediately preceding year. (2) The notice to be served on the dealer as required under sub-section (3) of section 17 shall be in form X. (3) Before making the assessment to the best of judgment, the assessing officer shall provide to the dealer reasonable opportunity of being heard." 14. Section 16 of the Act enjoins upon the dealer the duty for payment of the tax payable under the Act in such manner and at such intervals as may be prescribed. The payment of tax under the Act is to be accompanied by a statement in the prescribed form of the turnover of sales or of purchase in respect of which tax is paid. The payment of tax under the Act is to be accompanied by a statement in the prescribed form of the turnover of sales or of purchase in respect of which tax is paid. The rule enjoined upon the dealer the duty to submit a statement of his return and payment of tax in form V together with a receipt from a Government treasury, crossed cheque or crossed demand draft in favour of the assessing officer for the full amount of tax during the month to which the statement relates. A return therefore means a complete return in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The tax leviable under section is already fixed at the rate specified in Schedule II, item No. 94 of the Act. By the letter dated August 2, 1993 (annexure I) the petitioner was also informed about the rate of tax that he was required to pay with effect form July 1, 1993 to July 31, 1993 at per cent. In the instant case the petitioner submitted his return without making the full amount of tax payable on his taxable turnover and for not accepting the return by the assessing officer cannot therefore be faulted at. The assessing officer accordingly proceeded to make assessment under sub-section (5) of section 17 of the Act to the best of his judgment and determined the tax payable by the petitioner on the basis of such assessment. Before making assessment under sub-section (5) the assessing officer allowed the petitioner further time to furnish the return. By notice dated September 28, 1993 the petitioner was asked to show cause in writing and appear personally before the officer as to why penalty should not be imposed on him under the Act for his failure to submit the return without full payment for the months of July and August, 1993 in spite of reminder issued to him. By notice dated October 1, 1993 the petitioner was reminded of its earlier notice dated September 17, 1993 and September 28, 1993 and directed him to show cause in writing and appear personally on the date fixed as to why summary assessment should not be made sub-section (5) of section 17 of the Act and as to why penalty as per the provisions of the Act should not be imposed. By notice dated October 8, 1993 the petitioner was duly intimated about his failure to submit the return and initiation to make summary assessment and imposition of penalty on the taxable turnover as disclosed in the notice. The time was finally granted up to November 6, 1993 by notice dated November 1, 1993. The assessing officer also took all necessary steps in conformity with law before the assessment was made. The petitioner in an obdurate fashion defied the notice and avoided his duty to pay tax payable under the Act. The assessing officer acted in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The principle of natural justice is not an unruly horse. The rules of natural justice is not absolute and rigid. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Suresh Keshy George v. University of Kerala AIR 1969 SC 198 "the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules". Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [1949] 1 All ER 109 observed : "There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind of inquiry and every kind of domestic tribunal. The requirement of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject-matter that is being dealt with, and so forth......". The sales tax authorities were not bound by the strict technicalities of the Evidence Act nor did the Act or the Rules contemplates the assessing authority to more than what it was done in this case. The dealer under the Act and the Rules is duty-bound to submit his return and make payment of the tax strictly in conformity with the rules. Before making the summary assessment the concerned officer is required to afford opportunity to the dealer to furnish the return or to comply with the order/notice issued under sub-section (3) of section 17 of the Act. The assessing officer did whatever was lawfully possible. The assessing officer at the relevant time acted strictly in conformity with the rules and therefore no infirmity as such is discernible in the impugned order of assessment. 15. For the reasons stated above on the facts situation I do not find any equitable ground to exercise my power under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The assessing officer at the relevant time acted strictly in conformity with the rules and therefore no infirmity as such is discernible in the impugned order of assessment. 15. For the reasons stated above on the facts situation I do not find any equitable ground to exercise my power under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner averted with success the authority from realising the tax due by moving this application on erroneous and incorrect statement resulting enormous loss to the State. I find no reason to interfere with the assessment. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed and Rs. 10,000 is assessed towards costs. Writ petition dismissed.