ORDER Dr. R.R. Misra, J. - M/s. Chaudhary Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, was engaged in the business of sugarcane during the crushing season 1987-88 on option basis. The said petitioner had intimated that it will close the Unit on 30th April, 1988. On 2nd May, 1988, however, the Assistant Sugar Commissioner inspected the unit and found the same working. Under the circumstances, the Khandsari Inspector vide his order dated 23rd May 1988 raised a demand against the petitioner for the entire month of May, 1988. Aggrieved against the same the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10th Aug. 1988. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the assessee. His submission is that because of heavy rains the unit could not be closed on 30th April, 1988 as originally intended and ultimately it was closed on 4th May, 1988. It is contended that an intimation for closure of the Unit on 4th May, 1988 was also given by the petitioner vide its letter dated 1st May, 1988 and it was for circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner that the Unit could not be closed on 30th April, 1988. Under the circumstances it has been submitted that the authorities below were wrong in taking a technical view that the last intimation dated 1st May, 1988 was not in accordance with law as admittedly the Unit had closed its working on 4th of May, 1988. Moreso, when the situation for the working of the Unit beyond 30th April, 1988 arose because of the rains which was unforeseen and unavoidable reason. 3. Sub-cl. (1-A) of R. 13-A, U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase) Tax Rules 1%1 reads as follows : "(1-A) The owner of a unit shall give an intimation in writing of the date on which he decides to close the working of the unit. It shall be given under registered cover at least one week before such date to the Sugar Commissioner and the Assessing Officer (Emphasis supplied). 4. In the present case where admittedly the intimation to close the Unit was given on 1st May, 1988 and the Unit was closed finally on 4th May, 1988. Thus the petitioner only gave four days notice. 4. In the present case where admittedly the intimation to close the Unit was given on 1st May, 1988 and the Unit was closed finally on 4th May, 1988. Thus the petitioner only gave four days notice. In such an event the petitioner is liable to be assessed to sugarcane purchase tax for the entire month of May, 1988 as has been done by the Khandsari Inspector under the impugned order and ,.upheld by the authority below as aforesaid. 5. In the case Krishna Kumar Mittar v. State of U.P., 1981 UPTC 370 the intimation to start the Unit fell short of the aforesaid statutory period of seven days. Accordingly the Division Bench held as follows : "These second proviso to Cl. (1-A)of R. 13A requires at least one week notice before the specified date. Admittedly this was not done. The petitioner gave 5 or6 days notice. In that event, under the proviso to sub-r. (2-A) of R. 13-A, the petitioner is liable to be assessed for the first month on the basis that he really started crushing on Jan. 1 because notice of the changed date was not given according to the rules. He was hence liable to pay for the period Jan. 1 to 10 as well. There is no exemption under the Act or the Rules for delay in giving the requisite notice of the change of the date of commencement of crushing for unforeseen or unavoidable reasons. There is hence no discretion for the authorities in this matter." 6. On the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, it is amply clear that there is no exemption under the Sugarcane (Purchase) Tax Act or the Rules framed thereunder for non-compliance of the statutory provision of giving at least one week notice of intimation of closure for unforeseen or unavoidable reasons and the authorities have no discretion in this matter. To my mind it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to have given at least one week prior notice of the date of closure of the Unit which has not been done in the present case. In these circumstances, I find that there is no error of law involved in the impugned orders passed by the authorities below raising a demand against the petitioner for the entire month of May, 1988. 7. In these circumstances, I find that there is no error of law involved in the impugned orders passed by the authorities below raising a demand against the petitioner for the entire month of May, 1988. 7. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar and Sons v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1987 UPTC 938 and has submitted that if necessary allowance is not given for unforeseen circumstances it will lead to hazardous results. The said decision, however, solely related to the interpretation of the word"specified date" contemplated under the Second Proviso to CL (1-A) R.- l3- A, U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase) Tax Act and has got nothing to do with the problem involved in the present case. As such the said case is clearly distinguishable. 8. The other decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the case of Gupta Enterprises, Rijnor v. Khandsari Nirikshak Avam Kar Nirdharan Adhikari, 1987 UPTC 1009 but the said case also while interpreting the words "specified dates" relied upon the earlier decision in the case of Sushil Kumar and Sons (supra) and is of no avail to the present case. 9. In the case of Moradabad Gujarati Sugar Works v. State of U.P., 1986 All U 69 there was no dispute as to the correctness of the intimation given by the petitioner, hence to that authority does not support at all the controversy involved in the present writ petition. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that there is no merit in this writ petition and it is,-accordingly dismissed summarily.