ORDER Dr. R.R. Misra, J. - Controversy in this petition centres round the assessment of sugarcane purchase tax for the months of February, March and April, 1986 on non-option basis. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The revising authority, in the impugned order passed under Section 3B of the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has not disturbed the working number of days in the said three months. Admittedly in the months in dispute five Meerut Type Bhatties were in operation. Assessments were raised by the assessing officer in these months after taking into consideration the returns filed by the assessee on the basis of the inspections made and the capacity of the said Bhatties. No appeals were admittedly filed by the assessee against the said assessment orders. The revising authority, however, has under the impugned order, raised the capacity of Meerut Type Bhatti to 60 quintals from 40 quintals as assessed by the assessing officer. Rule 2(h) of the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules defines `Meerut Type bel as a set of open pans comprising up to 3 pans commonly used for boiling juice of sugarcane and capable of handling of juice from 60 quintals or less of sugarcane per day. Thus the use of these `Meerut type bel' has got relevance to 60 quintals of capacity per day. The objection raised on behalf of the assessee is that it was not open to the revising authority to take the maximum amount of capacity of 60 quintals. I find that under Section 3B of the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, the revising authority can interfere with the order of the assessing authority in case he finds that there is some illegality or impropriety. In this case from a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that so far as the legality of the assessment is concerned that was not challenged before the revising authority. Further no appeal also was filed by the petitioner against the assessment when the assessment was raised on the basis of capacity. So the sole objection raised on behalf of the petitioner before the revising authority as well as in this Court relates to the impropriety of the order passed. Further no appeal also was filed by the petitioner against the assessment when the assessment was raised on the basis of capacity. So the sole objection raised on behalf of the petitioner before the revising authority as well as in this Court relates to the impropriety of the order passed. As to whether on the facts of a particular case an assessment is to be raised on the basis of capacity of 60 quintals or 40 quintals per day is a matter, which certainly, in my opinion, cannot be gone into by this Court in writ jurisdiction. No other point was pressed. Thus, in my opinion, no case for interference is made out and the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs.