JUDGMENT

A. K. PATNAIK, J. — The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. For the year 1999-2000, assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act was completed under Rule 12 (5) of the Central Sales (Orissa) Rules, 1957 and a demand of Rs.1,17,590/- was raised against the petitioner by order dated 27.10.2001. Thereafter, assessment was reopened on the basis of a preliminary report despatched by the C.T.O. Intelligence Cuttack in his letter dated 15.11.2003 and a reassessment was made under Rule 10 of the C.S.T.(O) Rules, 1957 by the Taxing Authority on 25.10.2004 raising a demand of Rs.29,86,607/-. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of reassessment and for other appropriate reliefs.

2. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a reading of the impugned reassessment order dated 25.10.2004 made by the Taxing Authority, Balasore Circle, Bala¬sore under Rule 10(2) of the Central Sales Tax (O) Rules, 1957 would show that the said reassessment has been made on the basis for the preliminary report dated 15.11.2003 but the said prelimin¬ary report dated 15.11.2003 was never furnished to the petition¬er. He further submitted that the impugned reassessment order would show that reassessment was also made on the basis of the Fraud Case Report No. 84 of 2003-04 dated 15.1.2004 but the said Fraud Case Report was not furnished to the petitioner. He argued that since this is a case of violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner has moved this Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution for writ of certiorari against the impugned reassessment order and has not availed the statutory remedy by way of appeal.

3. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Sr. Standing Counsel (C.T.), on the other hand, submitted that a copy of the order dated 16.1.2004 by which the S.T.O. has issued notices under Rule 10 of the C.S.T. (O) Rules, 1957 for the year 1998-99 to 2001-2002 for reassessment of tax has been furnished to the petitioner. He further submitted that the Fraud Case Report No.84 of 2003-04 dated 15.1.2004 was also furnished to the petitioner before the impugned reassessment was made. Hence, the principles of natural justice had been complied with and this is not a case in which this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Consti¬tution should interfere with the impugned order of reassessment and instead, the petitioner should have availed the statutory remedy by way of appeal.

4. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner had taken the certified copy of the order dated 16.1.2004 relating to the year 1998-99 but had not taken the certified copy of the order dated 16.1.2004 for the year 1999-2000 and the reassessment order impugned in this writ petition relates to the year 1999-2000.

5. We find from the records produced before us that the Sales Tax Officer had passed the following order dated 16.1.2004 for the years 1998-99 to 2001-2002 for issuing notice under Rule 10 of the C.S.T. (O) Rules, 1957 for reassessment.

“16.1.2004. Perused the preliminary report in case of M/s. Birla Tyres of Chhanur BAC-1490 despatched by the C. T. O. Int. Wing, Cuttack in his letter No.688/CT Dt.15.11.2003. As per the aforesaid report, the dealer has di¬verted the goods displayed as export sale to the rune of Rs.2.79 crores for the years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 and the diverted sales have been effected as inter state sale within the country of India. So, the export sale has originally allowed towards deduction is found to be improper as the dealer has actually sold he goods inside the country. As per the preliminary report export sales pertaining to the year 1998-99 to 2002-2003 have been diverted and sold inside the country which resulted in under assessment of tax due to suppression of Inter state sale under so-called export sales which is not supporte