P.K.Jain, J. - (1.) The petitioner claims that he is owner of crushing unit for crushing sugarcane and he has installed one power crusher of 33 x 46 cm. with four 'Bhattis' Ruhelkhand and one power crusher centrifugal for which he was issued a licence under the provisions of the U.P. Khandsari Licence Order, 1967 which was renewed from year to year. He purchased sugarcane in the month of March, 1989 and paid purchase tax. Assessment order was passed by the assessing authority as contained In Annexure-1. Notice dated 17th July. 1989 was received by him on 21.8.1989. He sent reply through registered post on 26.8.1989. Another notice requiring the petitioner to be present on 19.2.1990 the rate of final hearing was received by him. On 12.2.1990 when the petitioner appeared his statement was recorded wherein he had given facts in detail. The revisional authority without considering the evidence as well as oral statement passed an order dated 16.8.1990. enhancing the sugarcane purchase tax for the month of March. 1989 to Rs. 14,400 and directing to him to deposit Rs. 10.485.15 paise in addition to the amount already deposited by him. The petitioner's case is that there were surveys dated 7.3.1989, 9.3.1989. 21.3,1989 and 31.3.1989. On some days only two 'Sheriffs' were found operating and on Other days no Bhatti was operating. The reports of the Surveying Authority are contained in Annexure-4, 5. 6, & 7 of the petition.
(2.) The petitioner has prayed that by issuing a writ of certiorari order dated 16th August. 1990 passed by respondent be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued restraining the respondent from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 3B of the Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act. The order is challenged mainly on the ground that the revising authority, the respondent has misread the documentary evidence, that the powers under Section 3B of the Act have been wrongly exercised and no appeal lies against the order under Section 3B of the Act.
(3.) Respondents contested the petition by filing counter affidavit mainly on the ground that the petitioner had never informed the department that during the month of March, 1989 he had operated only two Bhattis out of four Bhattis in his unit. It is also stated that the revising authority can exercise Jurisdiction under Section 3B of the Act if there is any illegality committed in the assessment order ; and further that the material before the revising authority was considered and thereafter the impugned order was passed.;