ORDER Dr. R.R. Misra, J. - The petitioner ran his union option basis during the crushing season 1976-77. Formerly he opted for a hydraulic machinery and thereafter before the start of the crushing season in the prescribed declaration form the petitioner appended a note that he will run his unit by non-hydraulic machinery. The Khandsari Inspector, however, raised a demand on the basis of the hydraulic machinery and the same has been affirmed by the appellate authority under the impugned orders. 2. I have heard counsel for the parties. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in view of the admitted fact that since for the entire period the unit was run by non-hydraulic machinery, it was not open to the opposite parties to have made an Assessment on the basts of hydraulic machinery. I find that there is substance in the said argument raised on behalf of the petitioner. In case before the start of the unit the petitioner states in the declaration form No. 13 prescribed under the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Rules 1961 that he will use non-hydraulic machinery and this is confirmed by the inspection notes dated 17-12-1976 and 3-3-1977 (Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition), in my opinion, the liability of the petitioner under the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act is to be computed under Schedule I to the said Rules only in regard to the non-hydraulic machinery used by the petitioner as stated in the declaration form. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the opposite parties are erroneous in law. 3. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned orders passed by the opposite parties, copies of which have been filed as Annexures Nos. 3 and 5 to the writ petition, are hereby quashed and it is held that the petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax on the basis of non-hydraulic machinery as per Schedule 1 as stated above. 4. The excess amount of tax deposited by the petitioner, if any, shall be refunded to him as early as possible.