ORDER R. R. Mishra, J. - For the assessment year 1982-83 the petitioner had run a sugarcane crusher. He exercised option contemplated by R. 13-A, U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules, 1961 and also gave an intimation for closure of the unit to be effective w.e.f. 7-5-1983. The Khandsari Inspector, however, when he inspected the unit on 8-5-1983 at about 11.30 a.m. found that Rab was being prepared on two bhatt is on that day. Accordingly the authorities below recorded a finding that intimation regarding closure of the unit on 7-5-1983 was incorrect and the petitioner was liable to pay tax for the whole of month of May 1983. 2. Sri R. R. K. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no crushing of sugarcane was being done on 8-5-1983 and in the absence thereof it cannot be said that the unit was not closed on 7-5-1983. He had further submitted that against the original assessment order passed by the Khandsari Inspector the matter was taken in appeal before the first appellate authority who had remanded the case. He has taken me through the aforesaid appellate order, which is Annexure 5' to the writ petition. A perusal of the same shows that the matter was remanded to the Khandsari Inspector as the inspection note prepared by him lacked particulars. In compliance thereof the Khandsari Inspector passed an order dated 7-8-1986 holding that the unit was being run on 8-5-1983. The said finding has been affirmed by the appellate authority under the impugned order. Both the authorities below have recorded a finding of fact that on 8-5-1983 at about 11.30 A.M. when the unit was inspected, Rab was being boiled in two bhatt is and, therefore, the unit had not closed. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is a difference between the two activities of the crushing of sugarcane and boiling of Rab thereafter. According to the petitioner what is material under the Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act is the crushing of sugarcane. On 8-5-1983 no sugarcane was being crushed. Hence it cannot be said that the unit was working on that date. 3. According to the petitioner what is material under the Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act is the crushing of sugarcane. On 8-5-1983 no sugarcane was being crushed. Hence it cannot be said that the unit was working on that date. 3. In my opinion having regard to the scheme of the Sugarcane Purchase Tax Rules it is the intimations regarding start and closure of the unit (emphasis supplied) that are material and in default of such information regarding start or closure of unit, tax liability is attracted under the said Rules. Hence a unit can be said to have been closed only after all the activities of a unit have come to stop. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, the authorities below were right in law in holding that the unit in question was working on 8-5-1983 and the tax was leviable on the said unit for the whole month of May 1983. 4. The writ petition, therefore, has got no force and is accordingly rejected.