JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This petition is directed against the orders passed by.the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 holding that the petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax in respect of the sugarcane purchased by it from 1-1-1979, the date intimated originally by him as the date, for starting the crushing operations. The contention of the petitioner was that he had duly intimated through a letter dated 22-12-78 sent by his Manager Chhattar Singh by registered post which was received by the respondents that the crushing operations would start from 18-2-1979. This plea of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents solely on the ground that the intimation had not been sent by the petitioner himself who was the owner of the unit. Learned counsel vehemently contended that Chhattar Singh was the Manager of the petitioner and he was duly authorised to send this intimation on behalf of the petitioner. The contention is well founded. 2. In paragraph 3 of the petition, the petitioner has categorically asserted that Chhattar Singh was his Manager and he had sent the intimation dated 22-12-78 acting for and on behalf of the petitioner. In reply to this paragraph of the petition, it has been asserted in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit that Chhattar Singh had not informed the authorities that he had the authority to send an intimation on behalf of the petitioner. There is significantly no denial of the assertion that Chhattar Singh was the Manager of the petitioner. In the petition it was also stated that in the previous years also the intimation contemplated under Rule 13(a) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules was being sent by Chhattar Singh on behalf of the petitioner and the authorities never disputed his authority to act as Manager on behalf of the petitioner. This circumstance clearly establishes an implied authority of Chhattar Singh to act on behalf of the petitioner at least for the limited purpose of application of Rule 13(A). The rules do not prescribe any form in which the authority of the Manager to act on behalf of the owner of the unit must be expressed. In the absence of such a form the authority shall have to he gathered in each case on the facts thereof. 3. There is another aspect of the matter. The rules do not prescribe any form in which the authority of the Manager to act on behalf of the owner of the unit must be expressed. In the absence of such a form the authority shall have to he gathered in each case on the facts thereof. 3. There is another aspect of the matter. From a perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority it appears that the petitioner's plea that he had actually commenced operations from 18-2-79 has been accepted. Reference has been made to the visits of the Khandsari unit by the inspector on three different dates in January and February. The Assistant Sugar Commissioner has specifically observed that on each occasion the inspector found the unit closed which lends support to the petitioner's case that he started crushing operations from 18-2-79. This finding to our mind, renders the controversy as to the authority of Chhattar Singh to act on behalf of the petitioner more or less academic. 4. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 21-8-1979 passed by the Assistant Sugarcane Commissioner, Bijnor as well as the order dated 16-5-1979 passed by the Khandsari Inspector-cum-Tax Assessing Officer, Bijnor, are quashed. No order to costs.