JUDGMENT B. N. MAHAPATRA, J. - In this petition, the petitioner challenges the inaction of the opposite party No. 1, Sales Tax Officer, Rayagada Circle, Rayagada (hereinafter called as, "the assessing officer") in supplying certified copies of three slips and thirty-six written pages of one diary taken away by the Vigilance Sales Tax Squad of Berhampur Vigilance Division on the date of surprise visit, i.e., March 12, 2008 and certified copy of the report submitted by the CTO (Vigilance), Berhampur [hereinafter referred to as "the CTO (V)"] on the basis of said surprise visit. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present petition are that one M/s. Lakhiram Jain and Sons is a partnership firm. It carries on business in seasonal goods, paddy and broken rice on retail as well as wholesale basis. Besides the trading business, the petitioner - firm is also running a rice mill under the name "bhagabati rice mill". The said firm is registered with the assessing officer under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the OVAT Act") with TIN No. 21901602962. It is also registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, "the CST Act"). A tax audit was conducted in the business premises of the petitioner - firm on February 24, 2008. After completion of audit, a tax audit report was submitted to the assessing authority suggesting to take action under section 42 of the OVAT Act in view of certain suppression detected during the tax audit visit. Again on March 12, 2008, the Vigilance Sales Tax Squad of Berhampur Division headed by the CTO (V) paid a surprise visit to the business premises of the petitioner - firm. In course of inspection, the officers recovered one diary/notebook containing thirty-six written pages and three other written slips from the business premises of the petitioner - firm. The notings made in three slips and thirty-six written pages of diary could not be cross-verified with regular books of account of the petitioner as the same were not available in the business premises. Statement of the managing partner, namely, Shri Bhupinder Singh Jain, was recorded on the date of visit who undertook to produce books of account on March 24, 2008 for further investigation. Thereafter, the managing partner appeared before the CTO (V) on March 24, 2008 and produced the books of account for the year 2007-08. Statement of the managing partner, namely, Shri Bhupinder Singh Jain, was recorded on the date of visit who undertook to produce books of account on March 24, 2008 for further investigation. Thereafter, the managing partner appeared before the CTO (V) on March 24, 2008 and produced the books of account for the year 2007-08. On the said date, a statement was recorded from the managing partner of the petitioner - firm. The CTO (V) submitted his report to the assessing officer. Thereafter, the assessing officer issued notice to the petitioner - firm under sub-rule (1) of rule 49 in form VAT 306 for the tax period from April 1, 2005 to March 24, 2008 calling upon the petitioner to appear in person or through authorized agent and to produce books of account on October 25, 2008. The said notice was accompanied by copy of the tax audit report. In response to the said notice, the petitioner moved a petition seeking adjournment for forty-five days on the ground that his accountant had gone to Tirupati and the managing partner, Shri B. S. Jain, had been suffering from high blood pressure with diabetes and was advised to take rest. Considering the said petition, the assessing officer re-fixed the date to November 11, 2008 for production of the books of account for verification. In the meanwhile, on July 18, 2007, the petitioner asked for certified copies of the statements and seized documents mentioned in annexure 1. On November 4, 2008, the petitioner also applied for certified copy of the report submitted by the CTO (V). The assessing officer issued certified copies of the statements recorded on March 12, 2008 and March 24, 2008 but did not issue certified copies of the seized documents such as the three slips, thirty-six written pages of the diary and the certified copy of the report submitted by the CTO (V). Hence, the present writ petition. Mr. G. Padhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that it is the bounden duty of the assessing officer to issue copies of the adverse materials, which he wants to utilize against the petitioner to enable him to meet the discrepancy and allegation. He further submits that the CTO (V) recorded the statement on March 24, 2008 according to his own sweet will and pleasure and forced the petitioner - managing partner to put his signature. He further submits that the CTO (V) recorded the statement on March 24, 2008 according to his own sweet will and pleasure and forced the petitioner - managing partner to put his signature. The action of the assessing officer is illegal, arbitrary and any assessment order passed without supplying copies of the documents so applied for will be highly prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. He, however, submits that in the meantime, the assessing officer has supplied the copy of the report submitted by the CTO (V) and the petitioner has already appeared before the assessing officer along with the books of account, but as yet the assessing officer has not supplied the seized documents such as copies of the three slips and thirty-six written pages of the diary. The learned counsel relies on the decisions of this court in Geeta Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1996] 100 STC 48 and J.S. Refineries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1998] 109 STC 16. Per contra, Mr. R. P. Kar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submits that pursuant to the application of the petitioner made under annexure 1, certified copies of the statements recorded from the managing partner of the petitioner - firm were issued to the petitioner. The purpose of surprise visit to the place of business of the petitioner was to find out whether the petitioner has indulged in clandestine business. In the course of inspection, the inspecting officers found some incriminating materials. Those materials could not be verified with the regular books of account of the petitioner as the petitioner failed to produce such books of account on the date of inspection on the plea that the same were with his accountant. In spite of the opportunities given for production of books of account, the petitioner has not produced the same before the assessing officer. The Revenue apprehends that the transactions noted in the seized slips and diary are not recorded in regular books of account maintained by the petitioner and issuance of certified copies of those documents will give scope to the petitioner to manipulate it's books of account. Therefore, the assessing officer is justified in not supplying certified copies of the seized documents before production of the books of account. Mr. Therefore, the assessing officer is justified in not supplying certified copies of the seized documents before production of the books of account. Mr. Kar places reliance on the decisions of this court in Kanak Cement Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Rajgangpur [1997] 105 STC 112 and Mitra Trading Company v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa (O.J.C. No. 252 of 1968 dated November 9, 1971). On rival contentions of the respective parties, the questions which fall for consideration by this court are as follows : (i) Whether a dealer is entitled to be supplied with the materials intended to be used against him in the assessment proceeding for his rebuttal ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing officer is justified in insisting upon production of books of account for verification before issuing certified copies of the seized documents, i.e., three written slips and thirty-six written pages of the diary seized from the business premises of the petitioner during surprise inspection ? So far as the first question is concerned, law is well-settled that if any person is likely to be affected by the use of any material against him those are to be brought to his notice for rebuttal. This is the requirement of the natural justice. The principles of natural justice are based on two basic pillars, i.e., (i) nobody shall be condemned unheard (audi alteram partem), and (ii) nobody shall be judge of his own cause (nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa). In Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University [1998] 8 SCC 194, the honourable apex court held that in order to impose procedural safeguards, this court has read the requirement of natural justice in many situations when the statute is silent on this point. The approach of this court in this regard is that omission to impose the hearing requirement in the statute under which the impugned action is being taken does not exclude hearing - it may be implied from the nature of the power - particularly when the right of a party is affected adversely. The justification for reading such a requirement is that the court merely supplies omission of the Legislature. In Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress [1991] Supp 1 SCC 600, the honourable Supreme Court held as follows : "... The justification for reading such a requirement is that the court merely supplies omission of the Legislature. In Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress [1991] Supp 1 SCC 600, the honourable Supreme Court held as follows : "... It is now well-settled that the 'audi alteram partem' rule which in essence, enforces the equality clause in article 14 of the Constitution is applicable not only to quasi-judicial orders but to administrative orders affecting prejudicially the party-in-question unless the application of the rule has been expressly excluded by the Act or regulation or rule which is not the case here. Rules of natural justice do not supplant but supplement the Rules and Regulations. Moreover, the rule of law which permeates our Constitution demands that it has to be observed both substantially and procedurally. ..." The honourable apex court in State of Kerala v. K. T. Shaduli Yusuff [1977] 39 STC 478 held as under : "... The tax proceedings are no doubt quasi-judicial proceedings and the sales tax authorities are not bound strictly by the rules of evidence, nevertheless the authorities must base their order on materials which are known to the assessee and after he is given a chance to rebut the same. ..." Similarly the honourable apex court in C. Vasantlal and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City [1962] 45 ITR 206 observed as follows : "The Income-tax Officer is not bound by any technical rules of the law of evidence. It is open to him to collect materials to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry. But if he desires to use the material so collected, the assessee must be informed of the material and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it." In Kishinchand Chellaram v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City II [1980] 125 ITR 713, the honourable apex court held that it was true that proceedings under the income-tax law were not governed by the strict rules of evidence, and, therefore, it might be said that even without calling the manager of the bank in evidence to prove the letter dated February 18, 1955, it could be taken into account as evidence. But before the Income-tax authorities could rely upon it, they were bound to produce it before the assessee so that the assessee could controvert the statements contained in it by asking for an opportunity to cross-examine the manager of the bank with reference to the statements made by him. This court in J.S. Refineries Ltd. [1998] 109 STC 16 held that any material sought to be utilized against the dealer has to be brought to his notice. This court in Geeta Industries Ltd. [1996] 100 STC 48 held that refusal to grant a certified copy of the order sheet so far as it related to orders concerning the petitioner, was not in accordance with law. This court in Mitra Trading Company (OJC No. 252 of 1968 dated November 9, 1971 - Orissa High Court) held as follows : "4. The main question for consideration is whether the petitioner should be given opportunity to take copy of the seized account book. The answer to such a question would depend upon whether principle of natural justice would be violated unless such opportunity is given. It is well-settled that principles of natural justice cannot be confined within close jackets. What would be the principle in a particular case would depend on the facts and circumstances of that case. One thing, however, is certain that in an assessment proceeding if any particular material is used against an assessee then the assessee must be given full opportunity to rebut any adverse inference that could be drawn from user of that particular material. This was fully discussed by us in Muralimohan Prabhudayal v. State of Orissa [1970] 26 STC 22 (Orissa) wherein a question arose as to whether the assessee could be given opportunity for cross-examination with reference to account books of third parties used against the assessee. This was fully discussed by us in Muralimohan Prabhudayal v. State of Orissa [1970] 26 STC 22 (Orissa) wherein a question arose as to whether the assessee could be given opportunity for cross-examination with reference to account books of third parties used against the assessee. In paragraph 5 of our judgment we referred to the fourth proposition as follows : 'In case he proposes to use against the assessee the result of any private enquiries made by him, he must communicate to the assessee the substance of the information so proposed to be utilized to such extent as to put the assessee in possession of full particulars of the case he is expected to meet and should further give him ample opportunity to meet it, if possible'." Needless to say that an assessing authority is entitled to collect the materials behind the back of the assessee. It is not necessary that all the materials so collected by the assessing authority need be confronted to the assessee. Only those materials which the assessing authority wants to utilize against the assessee in assessment is bound to be disclosed to the assessee. In appropriate cases, the assessee can also demand for cross-examination of any person who stated something adverse to him which the assessing authority wants to utilize against the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that a dealer is entitled to be supplied with the materials intended to be used against him in assessment proceeding for rebuttal and the dealer's explanation with regard to those materials is bound to be considered by the assessing officer in the assessment order either accepting or rejecting the same. The second question relates to the stage at which the copy of the seized documents should be supplied to the petitioner - dealer. Should it be supplied before or after production of books of account for verification by the assessing officer ? We should keep in mind that in order to plug the leakage of revenue the fiscal statutes provide various measures to be taken by the departmental officers including surprise visit to the place of business, audit visit, establishment of check-post, inspection of goods in transit, etc. We should keep in mind that in order to plug the leakage of revenue the fiscal statutes provide various measures to be taken by the departmental officers including surprise visit to the place of business, audit visit, establishment of check-post, inspection of goods in transit, etc. Pursuant to such provisions, very often departmental officers used to pay surprise visit to the business premises of the dealer to find out whether all the transactions effected by a dealer in his day-to-day business are recorded in his regular books of account maintained for the purpose of paying tax. It is not uncommon that unscrupulous businessmen who effect purchase and sale outside the regular books of account keep note of the same in some slips/chits or secret account for the purpose of their own reference. The inspecting officers while conducting inspection at the place of business of the dealer, invariably try to trace out such duplicate accounts. If any such account comes to their possession, they cross-verify the same with regular books of account maintained by the dealer and submit their verification report to the assessing officer alleging suppression of purchase and/or sale, if any, found on such verification. In such event, the assessing officer is not bound to accept the view of the inspecting officer in respect of the allegations raised against the dealer in the report in entirety. He may not accept the report at all. He may accept the report in part. Therefore, the part of the report containing allegation against the dealer and the materials on the basis of which such allegation has been made must have to be disclosed to the dealer for his rebuttal, if the assessing officer wants to utilize the same against the dealer. This court in Kanak Cement Pvt. Ltd. [1997] 105 STC 112 held that mere expression of a view by the inspector without any material to substantiate it cannot be the basis for drawing adverse inference. Thus, after going through the report of the inspecting officer, if the assessing officer prima facie finds that the report contains material(s) which suggests that the dealer is involved in suppression of purchase and/or sale or claims inadmissible exemption, input tax credit, etc., he issues notice to the concerned dealer for production of the books of account for relevant period for verification with reference to the seized papers/documents/registers. After considering the dealer's explanation, if he comes to a conclusion that the dealer has indulged in clandestine business activities, he rejects the books of account of the dealer and determines the tax liability of the dealer at a figure higher than the figure admitted by the dealer in his return. In the instant case, audit visit was conducted on February 24, 2008 in the business premises of the petitioner - assessee. Again on March 12, 2008 a surprise inspection was made by the CTO (V) and in the course of such inspection, the inspecting officer seized three slips and a diary containing thirty-six written pages. On the date of inspection on March 12, 2008, the petitioner did not produce the books of account on the plea that the same were with its accountant for the purpose of filing return. Section 61(2) provides that a dealer registered under the OVAT Act shall keep his books of account at the place of his business. Thus, the petitioner violated the said provision by not keeping the books of account at the place of his business during inspection. However, on March 24, 2008 the petitioner produced the books of account only for the year 2007-08 before the CTO (V) and on that date the seized materials were confronted to him and statement was recorded from the petitioner. Admittedly, no books of account was produced before the CTO (V) for the period 2005-06 and 2006-07 on March 24, 2008. In the writ petition, the petitioner in paragraph 3(b) states that the CTO (V) has recorded statement from the managing partner of the firm as per his sweet will and pleasure and forced him to put his signature. Even after receiving the notice from the assessing officer to produce the books of account, no books of account was produced before the assessing officer till the date of filing of this writ petition on November 14, 2008. The honourable apex court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [2003] 259 ITR 19 held that when a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file a return and, if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The assessing officer is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time. The assessing officer is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessing officer has committed any error in insisting upon production of books of account before issuing the certified copy of the seized materials. Production of books of account prior to issuance of certified copy of the seized materials is necessary to rule out the possibility of preparation of accounts in line with the seized documents. This has become further necessary in this case as at no stage books of account were produced earlier at the time of inspection or before the assessing officer. However, we make it clear that where in the course of inspection the inspecting officer seizes incriminating materials as well as regular books of account from the business premises of a dealer, the assessing officer or the inspecting officer shall supply copies of the seized regular books of account and incriminating material(s) to the dealer if he asks for the same before asking the dealer for furnishing his explanation in connection with any proceeding under the OVAT Act. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already appeared before the assessing officer with books of account, we direct the assessing officer to verify the books of account of the relevant years with reference to the seized materials and the report. While doing so he will confront the report and the seized materials to the petitioner and record a preliminary statement with regard to such verification. He may also record as to whether the alleged transactions noted in the seized documents are incorporated in the regular books of account on the basis of which returns were already filed. After such verification if he comes to the conclusion that the dealer has indulged in any clandestine business he shall allow the petitioner to take certified copies of the seized materials which he wants to utilize against the petitioner. Needless to say, the assessing officer shall allow reasonable opportunity to the petitioner for stating his case which shall be considered by the assessing officer in the order of assessment. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.