ORDER Dr. R.R. Misra, J. - For the crushing season 1981-82 the petitioner exercised his option as; contemplated by the proviso to Section 3 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961. The authorities below have under their impugned orders taken the view that although the petitioner owned two power crushers he exercised his option in regard to one power crusher only. Therefore, the option so exercised by the petitioner was held to be not in accordance with law and the petitioner was intimated accordingly by the Khandsah Inspector vide his letter dated 26-8-1982. According to the Khandsari Inspector since the option was not exercised by the petitioner in accordance with law, a demand against the petitioner for the purchase tax on the quantity of sugarcane assumed to have been purchased by the petitioner was raised. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate authority also under his impugned order upheld the view taken by the Khandsari Inspector. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed a copy of his option declared by Form XIII as contemplated by Rule 13-A of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules as Annexure- " 1 to die writ petition. Copies of inspection reports dated 7-11-1981 and 22-11-1981 have also been filed by the petitioner as Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition. From a perusal of the aforesaid annexures as well as the impugned orders passed by the opposite parties it is the admitted case of the parties that during the crushing season in question the petitioner had worked only one power crusher. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the option was exercised by the petitioner within 15 days before the start of the unit as contemplated by sub rule (1) to Rule 13-A of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the rules). The petitioner had worked his unit with effect from 6-11-1981 up-to 23-4-1982. The said option exercised by the petitioner was irrevocable for the whole crushing season as contemplated by subsection (1-b) of Section 3 of the Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act and the same cannot be revoked after the start of the unit and at any rate, not after the closure of the unit as has been done in the present case. The said option exercised by the petitioner was irrevocable for the whole crushing season as contemplated by subsection (1-b) of Section 3 of the Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act and the same cannot be revoked after the start of the unit and at any rate, not after the closure of the unit as has been done in the present case. It was further submitted that even after the inspections of the unit made on 7-11-1981 and 22-11-1981, the Khandsari Inspector did not raise any objection regarding the validity of the option of the petitioner. 3. In my opinion, there is force in the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Under sub-clause (1) to Rule 13-A of the Rules, the option exercised by the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions becomes irrevocable for the whole crushing season soon after the start of the unit concerned. In the present case, the unit of the petitioner had started with effect from 6-11-1981. To my mind, the Khandsari Inspector is also obliged under the law to give an intimation of the option, not being in accordance with law, before the start of the working of the unit and, at any rate, such an intimation cannot be given after the close of the unit. The intimation that the option exercised by the petitioner was not in accordance with law was given by the Khandsari Inspector only on 26-8-1982, long after the close of the unit on 22-11-1981. In view of the aforementioned legal position, therefore, the view taken by the opposite parties under their impugned orders is erroneous in law and the said orders are liable to be quashed. 4. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned orders dated 24-1-1983 and dated 9-4-1986 passed by the Khandsari Inspector as well as the Appellate Authority, copies of which have been filed by the petitioner as Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition, are hereby quashed and it is held that the option exercised by the petitioner cannot be held, under the facts of this case, to be not in accordance with law. Consequently, the petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax in respect of one power crusher only for the crushing season 1981-82. 5. The excess amount of purchase tax deposited by the petitioner, if any, shall be refunded to him as early as possible.