JUDGMENT S. SANKARASUBBAN, J. – This tax revision case is filed challenging the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode in T.A. No. 54 of 1995. Fair hearing and following principles of natural justice are the hall marks of a quasi-judicial body. It is a case where the petitioner filed a return for the assessment year 1985-86, for a total turnover of Rs. 1,41,892.20. According to him, the entire turnover was not taxable. But on the basis that there was an inspection on March 5, 1986 and recovery of certain materials, the assessing authority did not accept his return. Notice was issued to the assessee as to why the assessment should not be based on the proposed assessment. The assessee filed a detailed objection, which is produced as annexure D. According to us, this contained objection against relying on the materials seized as well as the quantum of tax to be imposed. The assessing officer disposed of the objection in one sentence stating that, "the contention raised does not merit any favourable consideration. I overrule the objection". The assessee took the matter in appeal before the appellate authority. After stating the facts the appellate authority took the view that the assessing authority is perfectly justified in discrediting the books of accounts and uphold the rejection of the accounts. The Tribunal, according to us, had not given an independent finding. The Tribunal has quoted profusely from the judgment of the assessing authority and the appellate authority and finally held that since the appellate authority has considered all aspects of the case in the right perspective, there is nothing for consideration. We are not satisfied with the orders passed in this case. When a proposal is sent to the assessee and the assessee has filed an objection, it is the duty of the assessing officer to deal with the objection separately. Sometimes, it may be true that the objection raised by the assessee may be untenable. But, when the assessing authority wants to rely on the proposal, objections have to be dealt with in seriatim. The assessing authority has to see that he is not the final authority under the Act. The decision could be challenged in two appeals and further in a revision to this Court. The assessing authority has to give reasons for rejecting the objections. The appellate authority has to look into the reasons. The assessing authority has to see that he is not the final authority under the Act. The decision could be challenged in two appeals and further in a revision to this Court. The assessing authority has to give reasons for rejecting the objections. The appellate authority has to look into the reasons. If the reasons are tenable, it could overrule the objections. But the assessing authority has not looked into the objections. The same mistake has been committed by the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal. According to us, there has been no fair procedure in this case. After all, a person may be eager to know why the contentions raised by him were rejected. He has a right to know it. One cannot only look into vain to find out the reasons. We would have quashed the entire proceedings but we are of the view that the assessee should not gain by a bad order passed by the authorities. Hence, we quash the order passed by the Tribunal. We direct the Tribunal to rehear the matter, consider the objections of the assessee, find out whether the order passed by the lower authorities are proper. If the order passed by the lower authorities are not proper, the Tribunal can remand the case. If it is possible to take a decision on facts, the Tribunal shall take a decision. The Tribunal shall pass orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of a judgment. Till fresh orders are passed, no recovery proceedings shall be taken against the petitioner. The tax revision case is disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 3515 of 2000 in T.R.C. No. 233 of 2000 dismissed. Petition disposed of accordingly.