ORDER : P.Sam Koshy, J. Heard Mr. M.V.J.K. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the State Tax for the respondent. Perused the record. 2. The instant is a writ petition which has been filed by the assessee initially challenging the show cause notice dated 08.06.2004 issued by the respondent for the alleged default in payment of tax under the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax, 1957. Pending the writ petition, the department had proceeded and had also passed the assessment order also vide assessment order dated 28.03.2007. Meanwhile, the writ petition was amended. The assessment order has also now been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. Primarily, there have been two grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the show cause notice as also the subsequent assessment order. First, we deal that the petitioner has not been permitted to cross-examine the material witnesses on the basis of which the show causes notices were issued and the final assessment order was passed. The second ground being that both the show cause notice as also the assessment order are bereft of material informations based upon which the show cause notice at the first instance was issued and also the final assessment order which was subsequently passed. The contention of the petitioner is that neither the show cause notice nor the final assessment order gives the details of the materials that were collected by the respondent authorities on the basis of which the show cause notice was initially issued and which later on culminated by the passing of the final assessment order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner went on to say that the assessment order as also the show cause notice does not disclose any information or refer to material documents over which the authorities could lay hand on, in the course of the so called inspection that was carried out on the premises of the petitioner’s establishment i.e., 25.05.2004. He further contended that without making available any such details, on a vague averment of the petitioner having imported huge quantity of mobile sets from overseas countries and have not paid the tax under the APGST law then prevailing, would not be sustainable. He further contended that without making available any such details, on a vague averment of the petitioner having imported huge quantity of mobile sets from overseas countries and have not paid the tax under the APGST law then prevailing, would not be sustainable. He further contended that these information’s are also not referred to or dealt with by the Assessing officer in the course of passing of the final assessment order dated 28.03.2007 and without these informations available, the petitioner could not had been expected to have effectively defended his case. He further submits that in the absence of making available these detailed information on the basis of which the proceedings are drawn against the petitioner, the assessing authority cannot be said to have applied his mind in the course of passing of the final assessment order. He further contends that the assessment order has been passed only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions without there being any complete materials either available with the department or if available, not made available to the assessee and also not been referred to either in the show cause notice or in the assessment order. On both these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the quashment of the show cause notice and the assessment order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KERALA vs. K.T.SHADULI YUSUFF AND ORS , [ AIR 1977 SC 1627 ] , K.V.KRISHNA MURTHY J.V.PULLA RAO AND CO. vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES , [ (2006) 146 STC 13 (AP)] and KWALITY FURNITURES AND DECORATORS vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX , [ (1986) 62 STC 337 (All)] 6. Per contra, Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader under instructions of the learned Special Government Pleader for the State Tax opposing the petition referred to the counter-affidavit which has been filed in the writ petition contending that the detailed information on the basis of which proceedings were initiated against the petitioner is that which is reflected in paragraph Nos.17 and 19 of the counter- affidavit which refers to certain bills of entries showing the alleged sale and purchase of the imported mobile sets from foreign countries by the petitioner and also refers to the so called customs duties also paid by the petitioner. The learned counsel representing the State, at the same time, also contended that the petitioner/ assessee, as a matter of right, cannot seek for cross-examination of the departmental witnesses or the authorities who had inspected the premises of the petitioner to rebut the contentions of the department and for both these reasons, the learned counsel for the State prayed for rejection of the writ petition. In addition to the aforesaid factual objections raised by the department counsel, there was also the objection of the order of the assessment being an appealable order and the writ petition on that ground also not been maintainable and the petitioner should be relegated to prefer an appeal challenging the assessment order. 7. Having heard the contentions put-forth on either side and on perusal of the record, so far as the first ground raised by the petitioner of not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the departmental witnesses or the officers who were responsible for the inspection of the premises of the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the said ground raised by the petitioner would not available to him in the factual matrix of the present case where the entire proceedings stand initiated on the so called inspection carried out by the department. It would had been a different case if the proceedings would had been initiated based upon the informations made available or collected from the third party agency where we are also of the considered opinion under the circumstances the petitioner would had been in a better position to claim for cross-examination of the third party and the materials provided by the third party so as to effectively defend his case. However, in the instant case, the materials made available with the writ petitioner would clearly show that it was purely on the inspection that was carried out on the premises of the petitioner on 25.05.2004 that the proceedings have been initiated and. therefore, the ground of cross-examining the departmental witnesses or the authorities who had carried on the inspection would not be permissible in the instant case. The said ground raised by the petitioner stands decided in the negative, in the favour of the revenue. 8. therefore, the ground of cross-examining the departmental witnesses or the authorities who had carried on the inspection would not be permissible in the instant case. The said ground raised by the petitioner stands decided in the negative, in the favour of the revenue. 8. Coming to the second ground of the show cause notice as also the final assessment order being bereft the details, on the plain perusal of the contents of the show cause notice as also the findings given in the final assessment order, we find that except for the repeated contention of the department that in the course of the inspection, incriminating materials reflecting sale and purchase of mobile phones by the petitioner establishment from foreign countries is all that is reflected. There are no details of what were the incriminating materials found in the course of the inspection based upon which the show cause notice was got issued. The assessment order also does not reflect any such details on the basis of which the findings in the final assessment order was passed. Unless the assessee is made known to of the details of the material taken into account calling for his explanation in the show cause notice, it cannot be expected of the assessee to effectively defend his case on general averments and allegations. When the show cause notice is issued, it must contain specific details of the materials found against the assessee and it is a reply to this specific details which is required to be submitted by the assessee. Such specific details are missing in the present case as to which were the invoices found in the course of inspection or the bill of entries or the vouchers on the basis of which the customs duties were paid etc., etc. No such details are available either in the show cause notice or in the assessment order. In the absence of such details, it cannot be said that the assessment order to have been finalized after a fair and reasonable opportunity being provided to the assessee. To the aforesaid extent, the assessment order and the show cause notice would not be sustainable. 9. So far as the ground of the petitioner having an alternative remedy available, we are of conscious of the fact that the petitioner does not have an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal against the assessment order dated 28.03.2007. To the aforesaid extent, the assessment order and the show cause notice would not be sustainable. 9. So far as the ground of the petitioner having an alternative remedy available, we are of conscious of the fact that the petitioner does not have an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal against the assessment order dated 28.03.2007. However, what is more weighing in favour of the petitioner is the lapse of time that has gone in between. The present writ petition was one which was filed in the year 2007. It was initially only against the show cause notice but subsequent to the final assessment order having been passed, the High Court itself had permitted the petitioner to amend the writ petition, which stands amended since then. In the said backdrop, now relegating the petitioner after almost 18 years period to exhaust the remedy of appeal under the Statute, in the opinion of the Bench, would not be justified and the said objection of the State Counsel so far as the alternative remedy is concerned stands rejected in the factual backdrop of the present case. 10. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner on plain perusal of the factual matrix under which the ratio of law in those judgments have been laid would clearly show that the factual matrix in the present case is quite different and under entirely different contextual backdrop. Therefore, all the three judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts itself. Nonetheless, as has been held earlier, given the fact that the show cause notice and the final assessment order not been with sufficient materials and informations in detail to which the petitioner would had responded or contested the show cause notice and the final assessment order dated 08.06.2004 and 28.03.2007 respectively, is not sustainable and the same is set aside/quashed. However, though we are setting aside the impugned show cause notice and the final assessment order, we are inclined to remand the matter back to the authorities for the department, if they so want, to issue a fresh show cause notice giving the details of the materials on the basis of which the show cause proceedings were initiated and after giving the details and calling for the reply of the petitioner/ assessee, let a fresh assessment order be passed in accordance with law. Considering the fact that the matter is of the year 2003-04, it is expected that the respondent authorities shall make all endeavors for the early conclusion of the proceedings. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.