JUDGMENT A. K. PATNAIK, J. — The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. For the year 1999-2000, assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act was completed under Rule 12 (5) of the Central Sales (Orissa) Rules, 1957 and a demand of Rs.1,17,590/- was raised against the petitioner by order dated 27.10.2001. Thereafter, assessment was reopened on the basis of a preliminary report despatched by the C.T.O. Intelligence Cuttack in his letter dated 15.11.2003 and a reassessment was made under Rule 10 of the C.S.T.(O) Rules, 1957 by the Taxing Authority on 25.10.2004 raising a demand of Rs.29,86,607/-. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of reassessment and for other appropriate reliefs. 2. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a reading of the impugned reassessment order dated 25.10.2004 made by the Taxing Authority, Balasore Circle, Bala¬sore under Rule 10(2) of the Central Sales Tax (O) Rules, 1957 would show that the said reassessment has been made on the basis for the preliminary report dated 15.11.2003 but the said prelimin¬ary report dated 15.11.2003 was never furnished to the petition¬er. He further submitted that the impugned reassessment order would show that reassessment was also made on the basis of the Fraud Case Report No. 84 of 2003-04 dated 15.1.2004 but the said Fraud Case Report was not furnished to the petitioner. He argued that since this is a case of violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner has moved this Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution for writ of certiorari against the impugned reassessment order and has not availed the statutory remedy by way of appeal. 3. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Sr. Standing Counsel (C.T.), on the other hand, submitted that a copy of the order dated 16.1.2004 by which the S.T.O. has issued notices under Rule 10 of the C.S.T. (O) Rules, 1957 for the year 1998-99 to 2001-2002 for reassessment of tax has been furnished to the petitioner. He further submitted that the Fraud Case Report No.84 of 2003-04 dated 15.1.2004 was also furnished to the petitioner before the impugned reassessment was made. He further submitted that the Fraud Case Report No.84 of 2003-04 dated 15.1.2004 was also furnished to the petitioner before the impugned reassessment was made. Hence, the principles of natural justice had been complied with and this is not a case in which this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Consti¬tution should interfere with the impugned order of reassessment and instead, the petitioner should have availed the statutory remedy by way of appeal. 4. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner had taken the certified copy of the order dated 16.1.2004 relating to the year 1998-99 but had not taken the certified copy of the order dated 16.1.2004 for the year 1999-2000 and the reassessment order impugned in this writ petition relates to the year 1999-2000. 5. We find from the records produced before us that the Sales Tax Officer had passed the following order dated 16.1.2004 for the years 1998-99 to 2001-2002 for issuing notice under Rule 10 of the C.S.T. (O) Rules, 1957 for reassessment. “16.1.2004. Perused the preliminary report in case of M/s. Birla Tyres of Chhanur BAC-1490 despatched by the C. T. O. Int. Wing, Cuttack in his letter No.688/CT Dt.15.11.2003. As per the aforesaid report, the dealer has di¬verted the goods displayed as export sale to the rune of Rs.2.79 crores for the years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 and the diverted sales have been effected as inter state sale within the country of India. So, the export sale has originally allowed towards deduction is found to be improper as the dealer has actually sold he goods inside the country. As per the preliminary report export sales pertaining to the year 1998-99 to 2002-2003 have been diverted and sold inside the country which resulted in under assessment of tax due to suppression of Inter state sale under so-called export sales which is not supported by valid AR-4 forms to justify the export of goods for the aforesaid years. So, issue notice u/r. 10 of the C.S.T. (O) Rules, 57 for the year 1998-99 to 2001-2002 or reassessment of tax for the afore¬said years finding date to 19.2.2004. So, issue notice u/r. 10 of the C.S.T. (O) Rules, 57 for the year 1998-99 to 2001-2002 or reassessment of tax for the afore¬said years finding date to 19.2.2004. STO” It will be clear from the aforesaid order dated 16.1.2004 that on the basis of the preliminary report of the C.T.O., Intel¬ligence, Cuttack in his letter dated 15.11.2003 indicating that export sales pertaining to the years 1998-99 to 2002-2003 have been diverted by the petitioner and sold inside the country, the S.T.O. has issued notice under Rule 10 of the C.S.T.(O) Rules, 1957 for the years 1998-99 to 2001-2002 for reassessment. Hence, if the petitioner had been furnished with the certified copy of the order dated 16.1.2004, he had knowledge of the fact that notice under Rule 10 of the C.S.T.(O) Rules, 1957 had been issued for the year 1998-99 to 2002-2003 including the year 1998-99 to 2001-2002 on the basis of the preliminary report to the effect that export sales during the said period 1998-99 to 2002-2003 were diverted and sold inside the country as a result of which inter state sales had not been subject to tax under the C.S.T. Act. The contention of Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petition¬er that he had not been furnished with the certified copy of the order dated 16.1.2004 in so far as it related to the year 1999-2000 is concerned, therefore, is misconceived. 6. We also find on a reading of the impugned order of reassessment that the Fraud Case Report No.84 of 2003-2004 dated 15.1.2004 had been confronted to the petitioner and a statement of Mr. M. K. Singh, Manager (Commercial) had been recorded after such confrontation. 7. Mr. Ray cited the decisions of this Court in Geeta Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another, (1996)100 STC 48, as well as J. S. Refineries Ltd. v. Commission¬er of Sales Tax and others, (1998) 109 STC 16 and submitted that certified copy of the preliminary report and Fraud Report Case should have been furnished to the petitioner. 8. Ray cited the decisions of this Court in Geeta Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another, (1996)100 STC 48, as well as J. S. Refineries Ltd. v. Commission¬er of Sales Tax and others, (1998) 109 STC 16 and submitted that certified copy of the preliminary report and Fraud Report Case should have been furnished to the petitioner. 8. But we find on a reading of the decision in Geeta Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another (supra) that in that case a Division Bench of this Court by referring to Rule 87 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 held that a dealer-applicant is entitled to certified copy of the order passed by the Sales Tax Authority if it concerns the deal¬er-applicant and in the said decision, it has not been held that a certified copy of the preliminary report or Fraud Report has to be furnished to the dealer if it relates to such dealer. 9. Similarly, on a reading of the decision in J. S. Refin¬eries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and another (supra), we find that in the said decision, a Division Bench of this Court has held relying on Kanak Cement Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer (1997)105 STC 112 that any materials utilized against the assess¬ee is to be brought to the notice of the dealer. In this case, as discussed above, certified copy of the order dated 16.1.2004 which contained the substance of the preliminary report dated 15.11.2003 to the effect that export sales pertaining to the years 1998-99 to 2002-2003 including 1999-2000 had been diverted by the petitioner and sold inside the country had been furnished to the petitioner. Similarly, as it appears from the impugned reassessment order, the Fraud Report Case No.84 of 2003-2004 dated 15.11.2003 had been confronted to the representative of the petitioner Shri M. K. Singh, Manager (Commercial) and his state¬ment has been recorded by the Sales Tax Officer. Hence, the material on the basis of which the reassessment has been made was brought to the notice of the petitioner. 10. Since there is no violation of principles of natural justice, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition which is accordingly disposed of. The petitioner, however, is granted one month time from today to file an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay before the appropriate ap¬pellate authority. 10. Since there is no violation of principles of natural justice, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition which is accordingly disposed of. The petitioner, however, is granted one month time from today to file an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay before the appropriate ap¬pellate authority. In case, such an appeal along with an applica¬tion for condonation of delay is filed, the delay would be con¬doned by the first appellate authority and the appeal shall be decided on merits. For a period of one month from today, the demand raised in the impugned reassessment order will not be recovered from the petitioner so that the petitioner may move the first appellate authority for stay. The original reassessment order be returned to Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner for filing of appeal. B. P. DAS, J. I agree. Petition disposed of.