ORDER Om Prakash, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order passed by respondents 2 and 3, which are Annexures 1 and 5 respectively to the writ petition, under the U.P. Sugar-cane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961f for short Act (for short, the Act 1961). 2. The assessment on the petitioner, who is the owner of a unit, was made for the period 22.11-1981 to 20-12-1981. But the case of the petitioner is that the unit started working only on 21-12-1981, and, therefore, the assessment for the period 22-11-1981 to 20-12-1981 is illegal. Upon a careful perusal of the order of respondent 3 (Annexure 5 to the Writ petition) it clearly appears that he has recorded a categorical finding that the unit had worked only with effect from 21-12-1981. He has also given a finding that the licence of the petitioner was suspended from 4.12.1981 to 20.12.1981. Having found that the unit actually worked form 21.12.1981, respondent 3 rejected the case of the petitioner because the intimation for changing the specified dates was not in accordance with Rule 13-A, U.P. Sugar-cane (Purchase Tax) Rules. 1961 (For short, the Rules 1961). 3. I have heard rival submissions of the parties The submission for the petitioner is that the sole purpose of giving the intimation a week earlier for changing the date is to enable the authorities to verify, either by making spot inspection or otherwise, whether the intimation so given was correct and that purpose has been achieved in this case as inspections on three dates, i.e., 21-11-1981, 8-12-1981 and 17-12-1981 had been made. It is also submitted that the unit would not have operated during the period 4-12-1981 to 20-12-1981, as the licence remained suspended during that period. It is correct to say that under R. 13-A the procedure has been laid down for giving intimation a week earlier from the specified date when the specified date is sought to be changed, which may enable the authorities to verify the correctness of the intimation. In this case, respondent 3 himself found that the unit started working only from 21-12-1981. It means, there is no dispute as to the correctness of the intimations given by the petitioner. Moreover, the unit has not operated from 4-12-1981 to 20-12-1981, when the licence was under suspension. In this case, respondent 3 himself found that the unit started working only from 21-12-1981. It means, there is no dispute as to the correctness of the intimations given by the petitioner. Moreover, the unit has not operated from 4-12-1981 to 20-12-1981, when the licence was under suspension. The petitioner to support his submission relied on Mahendra Singh v. Assistant Sugar-cum-Appellate Authority, Bijnor, 1983 UPTC 359, in which it was held that a technical omission that intimation was not sent to all the proper authorities will not be fatal, if it could be gathered from the facts of the case, that the unit otherwise remained closed for a given period. This authority is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The unit having not, admittedly, operated upon prior to 21-12-1981, no tax can be charged for the anterior period even on the assumed quantity provided in Schedule 1 to the Rules 1961. 4. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The orders of respondents 2 and 3 (Annexures 1 and 5) to the writ petition are quashed. The tax levied for the period anterior to 21-12-1981, will not be recovered. No order as to coss in the circumstances of the case.