ORDER : The petitioner had obtained lease of a Sand Reach, situated in Chagantipadu village of Krishna District, known as “Kalavaripalem Sand Reach” for the year 2004-05. The respondent initiated assessment proceedings, under the APGST Act, against the petitioner which culminated in an order of assessment dated 25.05.2007. In this order of assessment, the respondent made a best judgment assessment, quantifying the turnover of the petitioner at Rs.7,98,000/- and the tax payable at Rs.91,770/-. 2. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Vijayawada. The petitioner contended, in the appeal, that the lease granted to him was in the year 2004-05 and that the assessment order passed by the respondent for the year 2005-06 is clearly a case of non application of mind as there was no sale of sand by him during that period. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner accepting the stand of the petitioner had set aside the order of assessment and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer, for quantifying the turnover of the petitioner for the year 2004-05, with reference to the 2,800 permits, issued to the petitioner and utilized by him. The aforesaid figure of 2,800 permits was mentioned in the appellate order on the basis of number of permits mentioned in the assessment order itself. 3. After remand, the respondent issued a notice dated 20.03.2008, calling upon the petitioner to file objections to the proposed levy of tax at the rate of 8% on value of Rs.1,26,76,800/- which was estimated as the value of sand, sold by the petitioner for the year 2004-05. This show cause notice is said to have been served on the petitioner on 21.03.2008. Subsequently, the respondent on the ground that no objections had been filed to this show cause notice, had passed as assessment order dated 31.03.2008. This order of assessment is a best judgment assessment carried out by the respondent. The respondent, took note of the fact that no account books maintained by the dealer had been produced against earlier notices etc., and the fact that no books of accounts were produced even against show cause notice dated 20.03.2008 and had taken into account 27,800 transit passes utilized by the petitioner during the year 2004-05 and calculated the cost of sand at the rate of Rs.76/- per cubic meter. The respondent estimated that these transit passes were utilized transporting sand through lorries and that each lorry able to carry out six cubic meters. On this basis the value of sand sold per lorry was taken to be Rs.456/-. The respondent on the basis of these estimates calculated the tax payable on the total value of sand sold at Rs.10,14,144/-. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order, has filed the present writ petition. On 19.03.2010, stay of further proceedings was granted, subject to payment of part of the demand. 5. Sri K. Raji Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Venkatram Reddy Mantur, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the said order of assessment has to fail on several grounds. Firstly, the show cause notice and the assessment order are based on the information received from the District Panchayat Officer, Machilipatnam as well as the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement, Vijayawada. In such circumstances, there is a responsibility on the respondent to serve copies of these communications to the petitioner and failure to do so would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Secondly, the petitioner though accepting that he had utilized 27,800/- transit passes had also taken the stand that, these transit passes were utilized for 4,966/- lorries, 13,287 tractors and 9,007 bullock carts. Sri K. Raji Reddy, the learned senior counsel would submit that the estimate of the respondent that six cubic meters of sand were transported under each transit pass, is clearly incorrect in as much as the volume established by the District Panchayat Officer in the proceedings of lease would show only 5 cubic meters would be transported by a lorry, 2.5 cubic meters would be transported through a tractor and about ½ cubic meter would be transported through a bullock cart. Thirdly, adequate notice was not given to the petitioner and no opportunities to produce necessary documents were given to the petitioner. 6. Sri K. Raji Reddy, the learned senior counsel would submit that in such circumstances, it would only be appropriate to set aside the assessment order of respondent as being violative of principles of natural justice and on the ground that the estimates made by the respondent, in the best judgment assessment, are clearly not based on any reasonable estimation. 7. Sri K. Raji Reddy, the learned senior counsel would submit that in such circumstances, it would only be appropriate to set aside the assessment order of respondent as being violative of principles of natural justice and on the ground that the estimates made by the respondent, in the best judgment assessment, are clearly not based on any reasonable estimation. 7. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes would submit that the assessment order relied upon information given by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department as well as the District Panchayat Officer only in relation to the number of transit passes and there is no dispute as to the said number of passes. In such circumstances, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner on account of non supply of the communications, received by the respondent in this regard. He would further submit that the rate fixed by the District Panchayat Officer cannot restrict the estimates of the respondent in as much as the said rates are clearly low and it is open knowledge that sand was sold at the relevant time at a higher price than the rate fixed by the authorities. 8. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that the show cause notice issued prior to the present order of assessment is a show cause notice issued in the second round of litigation and the petitioner was fully aware of the proposed levy of tax despite which the petitioner chose not to appear before the respondent nor file any material or objections. In such circumstances, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 9. The earlier round of litigation ended in setting aside of the assessment order on the ground that the assessment order sought to levy tax for the wrong period. Thereafter, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for making assessment on the basis of the transit passes issued to the petitioner. There is no dispute that the number of transit passes which have been issued to the petitioner are 27,800 transit passes. The dispute relates to the question of whether all the transit passes were used to give permission to utilize the transport of sand through lorries or whether even tractors and bullock carts were utilized in the transport of sand, by using these transport passes. The second issue that comes up before the Court is the cost of sand. The dispute relates to the question of whether all the transit passes were used to give permission to utilize the transport of sand through lorries or whether even tractors and bullock carts were utilized in the transport of sand, by using these transport passes. The second issue that comes up before the Court is the cost of sand. The petitioner contends that the sand was sold at the rate of Rs.36/- per cubic meter as fixed by the District Panchayat Officer while the respondents estimates that the cost on sand was Rs.76/- per cubic meter. The respondent also assumed that the transit passes were used only by lorries and each lorry had carried six cubic meters of sand. The petitioner’s contention is that the District Panchayat Officer had estimated that it would be only 5 cubic meters of sand per lorry, 2 ½ cubic meters of sand per tractor and ½ cubic meter of sand for bullock carts and the said calculation should be accepted. 10. The fact remains that the show cause notice was received by the petitioner on 21.03.2008, in the second round of litigation, and the petitioner chose not to file objections or place material before the Assessing Officer. In such circumstances, the Assessing Officer cannot be faulted for undertaking a best judgment assessment in the case. 11. As far as the question of violation of principles of natural justice are concerned, the said principles are to be applied where it is shown that prejudice is caused to the petitioner on account of such violation of principles of natural justice. It is now settled law as reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Ors, (2021) 19 SCC 706 that mere violation of principles of natural justice would not render an order non est or void unless it is shown that violation of such principles of natural justice has resulted in prejudice to the petitioner or affected party. 12. There is no dispute about the number of transit passes. The only issue is on the question of what vehicle was used for each transit pass. The petitioner has not placed any material before this Court to demonstrate its contention that the transit passes were used for tractors and bullock carts also. 13. 12. There is no dispute about the number of transit passes. The only issue is on the question of what vehicle was used for each transit pass. The petitioner has not placed any material before this Court to demonstrate its contention that the transit passes were used for tractors and bullock carts also. 13. The further contention that the cost of sand should be taken at Rs.36/- per cubic meter because the District Panchayat Officer had fixed the said rate cannot be accepted. It is a known fact that cost of sand is much higher than Rs.36/- per cubic meter. In any event, in a best judgment assessment, it would be open to the Assessing Officer to arrive at a rate which is not unreasonable. This Court does not find the rate of Rs.76/- per cubic meter to be unreasonable. 14. The only issue left is whether all the transit passes were used for transport of sand through lorries. This issue is a question of fact which cannot be decided by this Court. Though, the petitioner has not availed the opportunity given by the respondent, by way of a show cause notice, the fact remains that the best judgment assessment of the respondent that all the transit passes were used for transport through lorries may not be correct. 15. In such circumstances, the assessment order of the respondent dated 31.03.2008, is set aside and the matter remanded back to the respondent-Assessing Officer only to the extent of ascertaining the manner in which 27,800/- transit passes were utilized and whether the said passes were utilized only for lorries or for other vehicles also. The burden of demonstrating that such transit passes were used for other vehicles would be on the petitioner. The amounts paid under the conditional order of stay granted on 19.03.2010 shall remain with the Assessing Officer pending final disposal of the assessment. 16. This Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.