ORDER Dr. R.R. Misra, J. - The petitioner had opted for paying purchase tax on the assumed basis for the crushing season 1981-82 in respect of the two power crushers. The Khandsari Inspector inspected and found that on 30-4-1982 and on 7-5-1982 only one unit was actually working. Copies of the said inspection notes made by the Khandsari Inspector have been filed as Annexures I and II to the writ petition. The Assistant Sugar Commissioner also made inspection on 1-5-1982 and a copy of the said inspection memo has been filed as Annexure II to the writ petition. On his inspection the Assistant Sugar Commissioner too found that on the spot only one unit was working. The Khandsari Inspector, however, took the view that option was exercised by the petitioner in respect of both the power crushers. The matter was taken in appeal by the petitioner but the appellate authority also confirmed the aforesaid view of the Khandsari Inspector and was of the opinion that the petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax in respect of both the power crushers. 2. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition it has been clearly stated by the petitioner that during the season 1981-82 the petitioner had closed one crusher w.e.f. 20-2-1982 and did not work the same thereafter. It is further alleged that the petitioner had sent due intimation with regard to the same to respondent No. 3. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit although it is alleged that the contents of paragraph 3 of the writ petition, as stated, are not admitted but there is no averment in the counter-affidavit that no intimation relating to working of one crusher only was sent by the petitioner. In view of the various inspection notes and the averments made in the writ petition, in my opinion, the petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax in respect of one power crusher only and the view taken by the opposite parties under the impugned order is erroneous in law. Admittedly unit of the petitioner had worked during the crushing season 1981-82 for the period w.e.f. 20-2-1982 to 16-5-1982. In regard to this period, therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax only in respect of one power crusher. 3. Admittedly unit of the petitioner had worked during the crushing season 1981-82 for the period w.e.f. 20-2-1982 to 16-5-1982. In regard to this period, therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax only in respect of one power crusher. 3. The second point taken in the present case is as to whether after the notification dated 26-3-1982 the petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax on the enhanced capacity of assumed basis. Mr. Rishi Ram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that under Rule 13-A of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, the option is to be exercised by a unit 15 days before start of the crushing season. In the present case admittedly the crushing was started by the petitioner on 20-2-1982 and the option was exercised by the petitioner before 5-2-1982. In this view of the matter the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under sub-clause (l-b) of Section 3 of the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961, the option which is exercised by an owner of a unit relates to whole of the year. Therefore, in so far as petitioner in the present case is concerned, he is not liable to pay enhanced purchase tax under the aforesaid notification dated 26-3-1982. 4. Under the proviso to sub-section (l-b) of Section 3 of the U.P., Sugarcane purchase tax Act the liability to pay purchase tax is at the option of owner of a unit. The provision of sub-section (1-a) authorises the State Government to prescribe the quantity of sugarcane for the purposes of the aforesaid provision. To my mind there is a distinction between an option to be exercised by a unit holder and the authority of the State Government to prescribe the quantity of' sugarcane which shall be assumed for the purposes of the option. In the former case it is the unit holder who has to take action while in the latter case of prescribing the quantity of assumed sugarcane it is the State Government which has to take action. The exercise of option and the prescription of quantity of assumed sugarcane have got different objects and operate in separate fields. These two activities are, therefore, wholly independent of each other. The exercise of option and the prescription of quantity of assumed sugarcane have got different objects and operate in separate fields. These two activities are, therefore, wholly independent of each other. Hence, in my opinion it is open to the State Government by the notification to enhance the prescribed quantity of sugarcane for the purposes of the aforesaid provision with effect from any particular date. To my mind there is no legal bar to do so. I am informed at the bar that the validity of the aforesaid notification dated 26-3-1982 regarding enhancement in the assumed quantity of sugarcane has also been recently upheld by a Division Bench of this Court. So the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner lacks, merit and fails. In my judgment the petitioner is liable to pay the enhanced amount of tax demanded by the opposite parties under the impugned orders. 5. In the result, the writ petition succeeds in part and the impugned orders passed by the opposite parties are quashed in so far as they seek to levy purchase tax in respect of the other power crusher. It is held that the petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax in respect of one power crusher only and that he is liable to pay purchase tax for the whole of month of April and up to 16th May, 1982 on the basis of notification dated 26-3-1982. The excess amounts paid by the petitioner, if any, shall be adjusted by the opposite parties in accordance with law. Under the circumstances parties will bear their own costs.