JUDGMENT G. SIVARAJAN, J. – Petitioner is a dealer in raw rubber. He is an assessee to sales tax both under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act. He is presently aggrieved by the assessment orders (exhibits P13 and P14) passed by the respondent for the period from April to July, 2003. According to the petitioner the said orders are passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner filed monthly returns for the period from April to July, 2003 and the assessing authority by invoking rule 21(9) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 sought to reject the monthly returns and to make assessments on the allegation of clandestine transactions revealed on enquires. It is stated that the petitioner, on receipt of the pre-assessment notices dated October 9, 2003 (exhibits P1 and P2) had submitted objections dated October 29, 2003 (exhibits P3 and P4) seeking for the supply of the documents obtained on enquiry to file detailed objections in the matter. Respondent, thereafter issued revised pre-assessment notices (exhibits P6 and P7). It is also stated that when proceedings were initiated to cancel the registration certificate of the petitioner issued under both the enactments on the same ground, petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 37666 of 2003 and this Court by judgment dated November 29, 2003 (exhibit P8) directed the respondent to furnish details based on which it is stated that the petitioner has resorted to clandestine transactions which is the foundation for the proposal to cancel the registrations within one week. It is the further case of the petitioner that in respect of the directions issued in the said judgment, petitioner was supplied with only photocopies of the documents seized from the petitioner on August 4, 2003 (exhibit P5) and that the copies of the declaration forms, N forms, etc., based on which it is alleged that clandestine transactions are made by the petitioner, have not been supplied. Even the photocopies of the documents obtained from the petitioner, it is stated, was supplied only on December 8, 2003 and the petitioner has filed his objections (exhibits P9 and P10) on December 15, 2003 wherein it is highlighted that the documents relied on have not been supplied and that the petitioner also wanted to cross-examine the officers who are custodians of all records of sales tax check-posts at Walayar and Kumily. As already noted, the grievance of the petitioner is that without supplying documents relied by the respondent and without affording an opportunity to cross-examine the officers who are in possession of those documents, assessments under both the enactments are completed as per exhibits P13 and P14, i.e., the next day after filing the objections. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent. Respondent was also present in court with the assessment records as instructed by the Government Pleader. Heard the rival submissions and perused the records. As already noted, the assessee is a dealer in rubber. He filed monthly returns both under the Kerala General Sales Tax and the Central Sales Tax Acts for the months of April to July, 2003. Respondent got confidential reports from the Commercial Investigation Wing of the Department that the petitioner had been effecting clandestine transactions by furnishing wrong particulars regarding the value and grade of rubber and that the value shown in the originals of the delivery note and the N forms varied. It is based on the said details assessments are sought to be made by resort to rule 21(9) of the Rules for the period from April to July, 2003. This fact was not mentioned in the pre-assessment notices (exhibits P1 and P2). However, when the petitioner sought for the details revised pre-assessment notices (exhibits P6 and P7) were issued on November 5, 2003 which referred to the materials based on which assessments were proposed to be done. Petitioner wanted photocopies of the said documents. This Court also issued clear directions to the respondent in exhibit P8 judgment to furnish the details based on which it is stated that the petitioner has resorted to clandestine transactions. Petitioner wanted photocopies of the said documents. This Court also issued clear directions to the respondent in exhibit P8 judgment to furnish the details based on which it is stated that the petitioner has resorted to clandestine transactions. It was also observed that if the respondent is not in a position to supply copies of all those documents he can ask the petitioner to come to the office for the purpose of perusing the said documents and/or to take down the relevant portions thereof. In spite of the said directions issued on November 29, 2003, respondent had supplied certain documents to the petitioner only on December 8, 2003. Here it must be noted that the documents which were supplied to the petitioner was only the photocopies of the documents seized from the petitioner (exhibit P5). It is also to be noted that the documents specifically relied on by the respondent for proposing the assessments under both the enactments was the originals of the delivery note and the N forms which were obtained from the sales tax check-posts at Walayar and Kumily and the Rubber Board check-post at Walayar. Admittedly these documents or the particulars contained therein, had not been furnished to the petitioner. Petitioner had also requested for cross-examining the officers who are in possession of those documents. All these matters are stated in the assessment orders (exhibits P13 and P14). In regard to the above, the explanation of the respondent in the assessment order is as follows : "The main objection raised by the assessee in the first para is that the details and documents in respect of the alleged discrepancies have not been made available to the assessee so far hence the assessee was not in a position to specifically respond to the allegations and to effectively participate in the proceedings by filing proper objections. This argument is baseless. The only document received from the assessee was the original and triplicate copies of the used delivery notes bearing Sl. No. DCTT 031401 to 031450 and 470851 to 470863 and balance unused up to 470700. The photocopies of the original copies were already made available to the assessee on December 8, 2003 through the authorised representative. No other documents were received from the assessee till date. No. DCTT 031401 to 031450 and 470851 to 470863 and balance unused up to 470700. The photocopies of the original copies were already made available to the assessee on December 8, 2003 through the authorised representative. No other documents were received from the assessee till date. The revised notice was issued on the basis of the confidential reports of the Commercial Investigation Wing of the Department." It is also stated that the Investigation Wing had collected the copies of the duplicate copies of the departmental delivery notes, form 27B and N form filed by the assessee before the check-post authorities during April to July, 2003 about which it has stated as follows : "The assessee is the custodian of the copies of 'N' forms and check-post declarations who filed the same before the STCP authorities and Rubber Board. Therefore, it is specifically clear that the assessee is deliberately dragging the case with intention to delay the assessment with his baseless argument that the documents in respect of the alleged discrepancies have not been made available to him." It is seen from the assessment orders that the respondent has relied on the particulars contained in the duplicate copies of the departmental delivery notes and N forms collected by the Investigation Wing that "the grade of rubber noted as natural rubber" but the same is natural rubber skim off grade as per certain original copies kept by the assessee. It is also stated that the value noted in the original copies is lesser than the duplicate copies produced before the STCPs and "N" forms filed before the Rubber Board. Further it is seen that the turnover is determined and the assessments are completed based on the aforesaid two documents. In these circumstances when the petitioner has sought for the copies of the documents relied on for the purpose of assessment, the respondent should have supplied photocopies of those documents instead of supplying the copies of the delivery notes seized from the petitioner. This not having been done, there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, in that the materials gathered behind the petitioner and relied on for the purpose of assessment are not furnished to the petitioner. This not having been done, there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, in that the materials gathered behind the petitioner and relied on for the purpose of assessment are not furnished to the petitioner. However, according to me it is not necessary to summon the officers of the check-post from where the copies of the declarations and N forms were obtained for cross-examination, for the said documents or the documents produced by the petitioner and/or issued to the petitioner by the competent authorities itself will speak. In the circumstances, I quash exhibits P13 and P14 and direct the respondent to pass fresh assessment orders in its place after furnishing photocopies of the declarations and N forms relied on for the purpose of making the assessments and after obtaining reply, if any, and also after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Photocopies of the documents will be supplied to the petitioner within one week, the petitioner will file his reply, if any, within one week thereafter and the assessments will be completed within two weeks thereafter. Before parting with, it has come to the notice that assessing authorities are taking up assessment proceedings after waiting for a long time after filing returns as if under pressure from higher-ups and complete assessments without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessees which is sine qua non for making best judgment assessments particularly in view of the specific provisions contained in section 17(3) proviso under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In the instant case, the matter relates to monthly assessments for the period from April to July, 2003. The monthly returns are due to be filed on or before the 10th of the succeeding months supported by evidence regarding payment of tax under rule 21(7) of the Rules, If the returns are not acceptable, the assessing authority can make an assessment under rule 21(9) of the Rules after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. In the instant case in respect of the period from April to July, 2003 pre-assessment notices were first issued on October 9, 2003, i.e., approximately two months after the filing of the monthly returns for July, 2003. The said notices did not contain the details. Thereafter revised pre-assessment notices were issued on November 5, 2003 but the same was served on the petitioner only on November 19, 2003. The said notices did not contain the details. Thereafter revised pre-assessment notices were issued on November 5, 2003 but the same was served on the petitioner only on November 19, 2003. In spite of the directions issued by this Court in exhibit P8 judgment on November 29, 2003, photocopies of the seized documents were issued only on December 8, 2003. Even then the relevant documents have not been furnished. That apart, when the petitioner had filed a reply on December 15, 2003 pointing out the above, the assessment is completed on December 16, 2003, the next day. All these, the assessing authorities say, "on account of the pressure from the higher-ups". This apprehension, if it is correct, has to be dispelled from the minds of the assessing authorities and make them aware that speedy completion of assessment does not mean "dispense with the procedural safeguards". The officers have to be informed that they must act diligently and not in an arbitrary or lethargic manner in complying with the procedural safeguards. When a pre-assessment notice is issued for the first time, a minimum period of two weeks at least must be given and whether the assessee seeks for a personal hearing or not, if the reply to the assessment notice is not acceptable, the assessee must be given a personal hearing to substantiate the objections. Failure to comply with the said formalities is not only against the provisions of section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and against the principles of natural justice, it is against "fairness in action" which will result in quashing the assessment orders as without jurisdiction. The attitude of the assessing authorities will only lead to delay in the collection of tax legitimately due to the Government. Consequently the very purpose for which instructions are issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes or the Government will frustrate. In the circumstances, it is high time that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Trivandrum, issues instructions under section 3(1A)(c) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 to all the assessing authorities regarding the need for completing assessments strictly complying with the procedural safeguards in the manner stated earlier diligently to take care of the interest of both the assessee and the Revenue. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Office is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram for appropriate action. Petition disposed of accordingly.