JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel, we are disposing of the petition finally. 2. The facts are simple and are not in dispute. The petitioner is running a Khandsari unit in the district of Moradabad. With a view to pay the sugarcane purchase tax on assumed basis under the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 and in terms of R. 13A of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules, 1961, the petitioner sent an intimation on 30th November, 1989 to the Khandsari Inspector that he would be commencing the crushing operations from 1st January, 1990. Subsequently, it appears, the petitioner changed its mind and decided to commence the crushing operations from 15th December, 1989. Accordingly, it sent a registered letter to the Khandsari Inspector on 8-12-1989, intimating the latter that it would be starting the crushing operations from 15th December, 1989. No objection appears to have been raised in regard to the validity of the option exercised by the petitioner under R. 13A of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax), Rules, 1961, till the season was over. However, by the impugned order dated 26th of November, 1990 the Assessing Officer has cancelled the option exercised by the petitioner on the ground that it had not given 15 days notice prior to the commencement of crushing operations on 15-12-1989. 3. The Assessing Officer was clearly in error in thinking that the law requires 15 days notice before the start of crushing operations. As we will presently demonstrate on the facts of the instant case, only a week's notice was required the second time. Rule 13A(l) provides- "1.-The option referred to in proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 3 of the Act hereinafter called "the option" shall be exercised by the owner of a unit by way of declaration in Form XIII, which shall be sent under registered cover to the Sugar Commissioner, the Assistant Sugar Commissioner and the Assessing Officer so as to reach them 15 days before the start of the unit. In such declaration the owner shall specify the date from which he decides to start the working of his unit : Provided that where the owner decides to start the working of his unit from any date earlier than the date specified under this sub-rule he shall, before he starts the working of his unit, give intimation to this effect, in writing and under registered cover at least one week before the date from which he decides to start the working of his unit to the Sugar Commissioner, the Assistant Sugar Commissioner and the Assessing Officer : Provided further that where the owner decides to start the working of his unit from any date subsequent to the date specified under this sub-rule, he shall give an intimation to this effect in writing and under registered cover to the Sugar Commissioner, the Assistant Sugar Commissioner and the Assessing Officer, at least one week before the date specified." 4. It will thus be seen that where a unit gives a proper notice under Rule 13A(1) for the start of the crushing operations but subsequently decides to start working of his unit from any date earlier than the date first intimated under the second proviso, he is required to give an intimation in writing under registered cover at least one week before the date from which he decides to start working of his unit. Of course, this proviso comes into operation only when the unit has given a valid notice under the main part of sub-rule (1) of Rule 13A, but decides later to advance that date. 5. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner had earlier given 15 days' notice which was valid and proper before the date mentioned in the intimation for starting the crushing operations. Equally undisputed is the fact that the petitioner had subsequently decided to start the working of his unit from a date earlier than the date specified in the first intimation. 6. The fact that the petitioner had given the subsequent intimation by means of registered letter dated 8th December, 1989 is not disputed in the counter affidavit. A week's notice as contemplated under the second proviso to Rule 13A had, therefore, been given. In the counter affidavit it has not been averred that this notice was received later than a week before the start of the unit. A week's notice as contemplated under the second proviso to Rule 13A had, therefore, been given. In the counter affidavit it has not been averred that this notice was received later than a week before the start of the unit. Even if there was a delay of one or two days it could be attributed to the post office and can, therefore, be overlooked. 7. Learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that the case should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for determining the question as to the date on which the subsequent intimation dated 8-12-1989 was actually received by the Khandsari Inspector. 8. We are unable to agree. In the first place, the Assessing Officer does not say that the petitioner had not given even a week's notice and secondly, the provisions have been substantially complied with by the unit. We do not, therefore, think it worth while to send the case back to the Khandsari Inspector. 9. In the result, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 26-11-1990 passed by the Khandsari Inspector/Assessing Officer, Moradabad, is hereby quashed.