JUDGMENT : K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the assessment orders produced as Ext.P9 series for the assessment years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. 2. The petitioner contends that the petitioner had been carrying on a metal crushing unit with two crushers; one cone and one primary and a VSI machine (Vertical Shaft Impactor). The petitioner contends that the Assessing Officer has made the assessment reckoning six machines while the compounding application has been made by the petitioner for one cone crusher and one secondary crusher of size (iii). 3. The factual aspect, as to the number of crushers available, cannot be looked into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially since there are alternate remedies provided for in the Statute against the assessment order issued. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is violation of principles of natural justice insofar as the Assessing Officer having given up the ground with respect to the information gathered by the Accountant General from K.S.E.B. and Electrical Inspectorate and the reference to a site plan, which was not previously referred to in the notice. 4. Admittedly, two notices were issued with the proposal to assess six machines, two of which were primary crushers, two secondary crushers of size (iii), one secondary crusher of size (ii) and a cone crusher. The notices are produced at Ext.P3 series and Ext.P6 series, which are almost identical. The notices specifically refer to the petitioner having conceded only two crushers, one a cone crusher and other a secondary crusher, under Section 8(b) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("KVAT Act" for short) for the purposes of compounding. This is virtually admitted by the petitioner too. However, the Consent to Operate issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board indicated that the petitioner was permitted to operate one primary crusher of 30 HP and two secondary crushers of 25 HP each. Subsequently, an Integrated Consent to Operate was issued by the Pollution Control Board permitting operation of a cone crusher of 50 HP. However, the Consent to Operate issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board indicated that the petitioner was permitted to operate one primary crusher of 30 HP and two secondary crushers of 25 HP each. Subsequently, an Integrated Consent to Operate was issued by the Pollution Control Board permitting operation of a cone crusher of 50 HP. It was also specifically stated in the notice that the letter addressed by the Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, District Office, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 02.05.2015 addressed to the petitioner, specifically spoke of an inspection conducted by the Pollution Control Board officials in the premises of the petitioner and having found one cone crusher of 90 HP and one primary crusher of 50 HP and one VSI of 90 HP having been installed therein. The notice also referred to information gathered by the Accountant General from the K.S.E.B and Electrical Inspectorate, which supported the aforesaid inspection. 5. Further, looking into the accounts and schedules forming part of the Balance Sheet, the petitioner himself is seen to have reported the following crushers in the fixed asset schedule:- "Bullet crusher 16' x 10 1 Number Bullet crusher 30' x 15 1 Number Double toggle crusher 2 Number Metco cone crusher gp 100 1 Number Remco sandmix model 100 1 Number Jaw crusher 1 Number" The Assessing Officer, in the proposal, specifically exempted the double toggle crusher and found others to be covered under the category of primary and secondary crushers. The Consent to Operate issued by the Pollution Control Board and the inspection carried out by its officials also indicated a cone crusher. 6. The violation of principles of natural justice is raised insofar as the Assessing Officer having not referred to the information gathered by the Accountant General. If a particular fact, which was not referred to in the notice, was relied on then necessarily an objection could be validly raised. But, here, the Assessing Officer has not referred to one aspect in the notice, since it was found that the permits and licenses issued to the petitioner by the Pollution Control Board and the Mining and Geology Department as also the accounts of the petitioner was sufficient to find considerable deviation having been effected from the declaration made in the compounding application. There cannot be any ground raised to urge violation of principles of natural justice, merely for the reason that one of the grounds in the proposal has been given up by the Assessing Officer. 7. The Assessing Officer has relied on the documents furnished by the petitioner, the inspection conducted by the Pollution Control Board and the fixed asset schedule, as revealed from the accounts and schedules of the petitioner himself. These were specifically referred to in the pre-assessment notice too. Further, the reply of the petitioner, as seen from the assessment order itself, evidence considerable deviation having been made from the compounding sought for. Admittedly, the compounding was sought for on the premise that the petitioner is operating only a cone crusher and a secondary crusher. The petitioner admits in the reply dated 24.10.2016, as extracted in the order, that the petitioner initially installed one primary crusher and two secondary ones and later installed a cone crusher without enhancing the production capacity. The compounding as permitted is not based on the production and is for the machines installed and the petitioner's contentions works against himself. The fixed asset schedule of the petitioner accompanying the balance sheet is also practically admitted, since the contention is that the said schedule includes the dismantled machinery too. When, for all practical purposes, it is admitted that deviation is existing in so far as the machinery installed and operating, from that originally declared for the purposes of compounding; there is no explanation offered as to why, on fresh installation, the same was not brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer. 8. On the above reasoning and in the circumstances noticed, this Court does not perceive any reason why the assessment order should be interfered with, in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court, hence, declines jurisdiction insofar as the writ petition is concerned and the petitioner would be left remedy to file proper proceedings before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner shall be permitted two weeks time to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, in which event the Appellate Authority would consider the issue on merits and would also consider any stay application filed expeditiously. The Appellate Authority would consider the appeal untrammeled by any observations made herein, which are prima facie in nature and only made to decline jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Appellate Authority would consider the appeal untrammeled by any observations made herein, which are prima facie in nature and only made to decline jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The recovery shall be kept in abeyance for one month and then be governed by the orders passed by the Appellate Authority; if an appeal is filed and if not the recovery shall be carried forward. The writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.