Radhakrishnan, J.

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P12 order dated 18.11.2005 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax directing the assessee to ensure compliance with the statutory notification issued under Section 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without fail and also for other consequential reliefs.

2. Petitioner is a company owned by the State Government engaged in the business of manufacture of cement and cement paints at Kottayam and is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the files of the second respondent. In respect of the assessment year 2000-2001 petitioner filed its original return on 28.11.2000 declaring a total income of Rs.2,37,56,900/-. A revised return was filed on 05.01.2001 with a revised total income of Rs.1,91,32,250/- along with the audit report under Section 44 AB. The return was processed and accepted by the assessing authority under Section 143(1) of the Act on 31.01.2002. Return of income was not taken up for scrutiny under Section 143 (3) of the Act. The date for completing the regular assessment under Section 143 (3) was however expired on 31.03.2003.

3. Petitioner was later served with a notice Ext.P3 dated 28.03.2005 under Section 148 of the Act by the first respondent informing that he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2000-2001 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Petitioner was therefore informed by the first respondent that he has proposed to reassess the income for the said assessment year and was therefore directed to submit a return in the prescribed form within thirty days from the date of the said notice. In response to the notice petitioner filed its return showing the income as shown in the original return. Petitioner also sent a letter Ext.P5 dated 18.04.2005 requesting the first respondent to intimate he reasons recorded for the purpose of reopening the assessment as per the ruling of the apex court in GKN. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer and others (2003) 259 I.T.R. 19) Later, after the expiry of six months, petitioner was served with a letter, Ext.P6 dated 17.10.2005 stating as follows:

“The reasons recorded for reopening of the case are as follows:

A.Y. 2000-01

Exercise duty (16%) has not been included in valuation of closing stock.

A.Y. 2001-02

Excise duty (16%) has not been included in valuation of closing stock. Further, provision for bad debts has not been added back to total income”.

Petitioner was later served with notices Exts.P7 and P8 dated 31.10.2005 under Sections 143 (2) and 142 of the Act directing the petitioner to appear before the first respondent so as to get further information in connection with the return of income submitted by the petitioner on 18.04.2005, vide Ext.P8 notice issued under Section 142 for the assessment year 2000-2001. Petitioner was also directed to file fresh return and also to produce the following documents.

i) Proof of addition to fixed assets and proof of installation.

ii) It is proposed to add back Rs.46,13,711/- being provision for shortage of lime shell stock as this is in the nature of a mere provision and was not ascertained in the year end 31.3.2000. Objections, if any, may be filed.

iii) Objections, if any, to the inclusion of excise duty @ 16% in calculation of closing stock.

iv) Break-up of interest paid.

v) Ledger with narration and supporting bills/vouchers regarding repairs to building and repairs to machinery.

Petitioner in the meanwhile filed detailed objection to Ext.P6 vide Ext.P9 reply dated 14.11.2005 requesting to drop the proceedings initiated under Section 148 being contrary to the provisions of Section 147 since there was no escapement of income. Petitioner has also pointed out that there is no escapement of income on account of the reason that the excise duty (16%) has not been included in valuation of closing stock. Petitioner also pre