N. D. OJHA, R. K. GULATI, JJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, which is a partnership concern, carried on business in electric goods and cycle parts. The petitioner purchased some goods from certain dealers at New Delhi which were being transported by a truck of M/s. Bombay Madras Roadlines, New Delhi. The case of the petitioner is that these goods were being transported under the two invoices both dated 30th June, 1986. The truck carrying the consignment was checked at the Check Post, Ghaziabad and was detained. Subsequently after giving a notice to show cause to the transporters, those goods were seized by the Sales Tax Officer, Check Post/mobile Squad, Ghaziabad. ( 2 ) THE value of the entire goods which were being carried by the truck, was put by the Sales Tax officer at Rs. 2,99,130. 00. Subsequently it appears that the value of the goods belonging to the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1,42,400 and the petitioner was required to furnish 40 per cent of the aforesaid amount as cash security for getting them released. Aggrieved by the order of the Sales tax Officer, the petitioner made an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, mobile Squad/check Post, Ghaziabad, for the release of the goods without furnishing any security. That application was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Mobile squad/check Post, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 2, on 17th July, 1986. ( 3 ) THE petitioner subsequently made another application before respondent No. 2 on 12th august, 1986, stating that the value of the goods had erroneously been fixed by the Sales Tax officer at Rs. 1,42,400 when the two invoices one of which was already on record of the Sales tax Officer and another was filed before the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No. 2, indicated that the value of the goods belonging to the petitioner was only Rs. 68,354. In this application, the petitioner made a prayer for the value of the goods being corrected and also for permission to furnish bank guarantee in place of giving cash security. This application was dismissed by respondent No. 2 on 13th August, 1986, merely by saying that after considering the said application, the same has been dismissed. 68,354. In this application, the petitioner made a prayer for the value of the goods being corrected and also for permission to furnish bank guarantee in place of giving cash security. This application was dismissed by respondent No. 2 on 13th August, 1986, merely by saying that after considering the said application, the same has been dismissed. ( 4 ) KEEPING in view the nature of the controversy involved in this case and the circumstances that both the respondents are represented, we are of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be finally disposed of at this very stage as contemplated by the second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter xxii of the Rules of the Court. We have accordingly heard counsel for the parties on the merits of the writ petition. ( 5 ) IT has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the Assistant Commissioner has committed manifest error of law in not recording any finding as to why he had disbelieved the case of the petitioner that the value of the goods was not Rs. 68,354 as shown in the two invoices. He has further urged that the Assistant Commissioner has also not recorded any finding as to why the prayer of the petitioner for being permitted to furnish bank guarantee in place of cash security had been refused. According to him there was indeed no basis for fixing the value of the goods at Rs. 1,42,400. ( 6 ) WE find substance in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case, an application was specifically made by the petitioner on 12th August, 1986 with a prayer for correcting the value of the goods as also for permission to furnish bank guarantee in place of cash security. The said application was dismissed by stating that it had been considered and rejected. The Assistant Commissioner has not given any reason either in his earlier order dated 17th July, 1986 or in his subsequent order dated 13th August, 1986 as to why the prayer made by the petitioner, as stated above, was not accepted. The said application was dismissed by stating that it had been considered and rejected. The Assistant Commissioner has not given any reason either in his earlier order dated 17th July, 1986 or in his subsequent order dated 13th August, 1986 as to why the prayer made by the petitioner, as stated above, was not accepted. It is true that the power conferred on the assistant Commissioner under Section 13-A (6) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, is discretionary in the matter of changing the nature of security but if in any case some special circumstances are brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner by a dealer in support of the prayer for permission to furnish security other than cash, the Assistant Commissioner should record reasons for not accepting the prayer of the dealer. ( 7 ) IN our opinion, on. the facts of the instant case, the impugned orders dated 17th July, 1986 and 13th August, 1986, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Mobile Squad/check Post, ghaziabad, respondent No. 2, cannot be sustained. ( 8 ) IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part to this extent that the orders dated 17th July, 1986 and 13th August, 1986, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, mobile Squad/check Post, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 2, are quashed and he is directed to decide the application made by the petitioner afresh after hearing the petitioner. In case the assistant Commissioner does not agree with the plea raised by the petitioner in regard to the value of the goods and his prayer for permission to furnish bank guarantee in place of cash security is not accepted by the Assistant Commissioner, he shall record reasons for doing so. In the circumstances of the case, there will, however, be no order as to costs. ( 9 ) LET certified copies of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of necessary charges within three days. .