ORDER Dr. R.R. Misra, J. - The petitioner ran his unit of power crusher for the crushing season 1983-84 on non-option basis. He filed his returns under the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules 1961 in prescribed Form No. 7. In the impugned assessment orders passed by the Khandsari Inspector and upheld by the appellate authority, the opposite parties have taken the view that since records were not found at the time of inspections this leads to - suspect the credibility of the accounts maintained by the petitioner. Accordingly the opposite parties have made a best judgment assessment under the impugned orders on the basis of assumed capacity of sugarcane as per Schedule prescribed under the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules. 2. I have heard counsel for the parties. The objection raised on behalf of the petitioner is that unless some specific discrepancy is found out by the opposite parties in the returns filed by the petitioner from time to time it is not open under the law for the opposite parties to reject the said returns and make a best judgment assessment. Copies of the inspection notes dated 20-1-1984, 28-1-1984, 26-2-1984, and 10-3-1984 have been filed as Annexures Nos. 2 to 5 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said inspection notes clearly shows that at the time of inspections the records were available before the Khandsari Inspector and he has mentioned various details from the aforesaid records in his inspection notes. No discrepancy has been pointed out in any of the said inspection notes in the aforesaid records maintained by the petitioner. In Annexure No. 1 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties find that although there is a mention with regard to certain figures from the records of the petitioner but no specific discrepancy in the records maintained by thy petitioner has been pointed out. Hence, in my opinion, there is substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the finding recorded by the opposite parties that the records were not found at the time of inspection, is incorrect. At any rate, to my mind, the view that the returns filed by the petitioner are liable to be rejected in case records were not found at the lime of inspections is also not in accordance with law. In this view of the matter. At any rate, to my mind, the view that the returns filed by the petitioner are liable to be rejected in case records were not found at the lime of inspections is also not in accordance with law. In this view of the matter. I find that the demand raised by the Khandsari Inspector and upheld by the appellate authority does not have the sanction of law and deserves to be quashed. Under the circumstances, the second submission made on behalf of the petitioner regarding erroneous assessment made on option basis in this case need not be considered. 3. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned assessment orders passed by the Khandsari Inspector and as upheld by the appellate authority, copies of which have been filed as Annexures Nos. 6 to 9 to the writ petition, are hereby quashed.