JUDGMENT K. M. Joseph, J. – The petitioner, in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India, calls in question exhibit P14 order of assessment for the assessment year 2003-04 and seeks a mandamus to issue a copy of the verification report of the intelligence officer which is referred to in exhibit P12 notice. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows : The petitioner came to be served with pre-assessment notice dated January 25, 2008 and it was received on January 31, 2008. The petitioner filed exhibit P13 reply which is dated February 2, 2008. According to the petitioner, the assessment is proposed on the basis of the verification report of the intelligence officer. It is a document which is relied on by the assessing authority. Hence while filing objections, the petitioner requested that a copy of the said report may be given to the petitioner. The impugned order dated February 15, 2008, however, came to be passed overruling the objections and also rejecting the request of the petitioner to give copy of the verification report. The petitioner calls in question exhibit P14 assessment order. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The case is taken up for hearing by consent of the parties and the Government Pleader submits that no counter is necessary. The counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from everything else, the procedure adopted by the assessing authority is one which has been discountenanced by this court. He would submit that when an authority relies on a document for the purpose of taking a decision, it is elementary that a copy of the said document should be made available, so that as a part of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner is afforded an opportunity to disabuse the authority of the views he has formed on the strength of the said document. Principles of natural justice came to be contravened by the refusal of a copy of the report, he submits. Further, more importantly, he submits that when the petitioner submitted his objections to the pre-assessment notice and they were found unacceptable by the assessing authority, it is incumbent on the assessing authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Principles of natural justice came to be contravened by the refusal of a copy of the report, he submits. Further, more importantly, he submits that when the petitioner submitted his objections to the pre-assessment notice and they were found unacceptable by the assessing authority, it is incumbent on the assessing authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In this connection, he drew my attention to the decision of this court in Sri C. K. Sunny v. Additional Sales Tax Officer - I [2005] 139 STC 186 (Ker); [2004] 12 KTR 360 (Ker), wherein it is, inter alia, held as follows : "... 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 the principles of natural justice, it is 'fairness in action', which will result in quashing the assessment orders as without jurisdiction. ..." The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Edakalathur Traders v. State of Kerala [2004] 12 KTR 90 for the proposition that if an opportunity of being heard is not given for dealing with a document relied on, that will amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Government Pleader points out that actually this is a case where the petitioner, though he had filed objections as claimed, has not signed the objection. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that while in the beginning the assessing authority states that the objections are not signed and therefore they are rejected, a perusal of the order would further show that the authority has considered the objections of the petitioner and proceeded to reject the same on merits. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that while in the beginning the assessing authority states that the objections are not signed and therefore they are rejected, a perusal of the order would further show that the authority has considered the objections of the petitioner and proceeded to reject the same on merits. Once the latter course came to be adopted by the assessing authority, it is evident that the authority was adopting a course which involves rejection of the objections on merits which he could have done only after an opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner, going by the decisions of the court aforesaid. Once this principle is found to be contravened, I feel that it is not necessary for me to drive the party to pursue the alternate remedy, as the contravention of the law is patent and violation of the principles of natural justice is an established exception to the general principle that courts would not entertain writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India in the face of effective and efficacious alternate remedies available. In such circumstances, I am constrained to quash exhibit P14. It is pointed out by the parties that notice to the fourth respondent may not be necessary, in the nature of the relief that is being granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without notice to the fourth respondent, quashing exhibit P14. There will be a direction to the fifth respondent to take up the assessment and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, complete the same in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will co-operate with the early disposal of the case.