JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—This writ petition is directed against notice dated 8.9.1986 issued by Khandsari Inspector Chandausi to the petitioner rejecting the option given by the petitioner under proviso to Section 3(1) of U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 read with Rule 13-A of U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules, 1961 for the crushing seasons 1985-86 and fixing 16.9.1986 for determining the sugar purchase tax on the petitioner’s unit. 2. The proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act is quoted below : “Provided that in the case of a unit, the tax shall be payable on the quantity of sugarcane actually purchased or, at the option of owner of the unit, on the quantity of sugarcane assumed, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1-a) to have been purchased by him.” 3. Sub-section (1-b) of Section 3 of the Act is quoted below : “the option referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1) shall be exercised by the owner of a unit by such date and in such form as may be prescribed and shall relate to the whole of assessment year. The option once exercised shall be irrevocable for that year.” 4. Rule 13-A (1) and its first proviso are quoted below : “the option referred to in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 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 a 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 whether 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 the effect, in writing and under registered cover at least one week before from the date from which he decides to start the working of his unit to the Sugar Commissioner, Assistant Sugar Commissioner and the Assessing Officer; Provided further that...................(not relevant)" 5. Under Section 3 of the Act petitioner exercised his option. Under Section 3 of the Act petitioner exercised his option. Under Rule 13-A of the Rules petitioner specified the date from which it decided to start the working of his unit as 1.1.1986. Declaration in form XIII was sent through registered post on 20.11.1985 and it reached the officers concerned on 22.11.1985. 6. Thereafter petitioner decided to start the working of his unit from 6.12.1985. Intimation in that regard was sent to the officers concerned through registered letter dated 29.11.1985, which reached the officers concerned on 2.12.1985. The intimation was sent through registered post exactly one week before as required by first proviso to Rule 13-A. The authorities mentioned under Rule 13-A i.e. Khandsari Inspector Chandausi or Deputy Sugar Commissioner did not object until August 1986 to the change of date on which petitioner decided to start the working of its unit. For the crushing season 1985-86 the unit was closed on 4.4.1986 as is apparent from the report of Khandsari Officer Moradabad which is last annexure to the writ petition. In the said report, it is mentioned that the unit worked from 6.11.1985 to 4.4.1986. 7. In the impugned notice it is mentioned that Dy. Sugar Commissioner Bareilly through letter dated 16.8.1986 rejected the option given by the petitioner under Section 3 of the Act. The reason given is that the intimation of change of date was not received 15 days before the changed date. Under Rule 13-A option is to be sent in such manner that it reaches the authorities concerned 15 days before the proposed date of start of the unit. However, thereafter the date of proposed start of unit may be preponed by sending registered information one week before the proposed date. Under first proviso to Rule 13-A in respect of intimation of preponing the date, it is necessary that it shall be sent through registered post but it is not necessary that it shall be sent in such manner that it is received by the authorities concerned one week before the changed date. Unlike Rule 13-A(1) where requirement is to send the option through registered post in such manner that it reaches the authorities concerned 15 days before proposed date of start of a unit, under first proviso the only requirement is that it shall be sent through registered post one week before the preponed date. Unlike Rule 13-A(1) where requirement is to send the option through registered post in such manner that it reaches the authorities concerned 15 days before proposed date of start of a unit, under first proviso the only requirement is that it shall be sent through registered post one week before the preponed date. The said requirement stood complied with by sending the intimation on 29.11.1985 through which it was intimated that the earlier proposed date of start of the unit i.e. 1.1.1986 had been preponed to 6.12.1985. There is exactly one week’s difference between 29.11.1985 and 6.12.1985. 8. There appears to be some lacuna in the drafting of Rule 13-A(1) and its first proviso. The owner of the unit may frustrate the requirement of exercising option at least 15 days before the start of the unit by sending the declaration for exercising the option giving an imaginary date after 3 or 4 weeks and immediately thereafter sending the information preponing the said date which is after one week from the date on which intimation of change of option is sent through registered post. However, the proviso as it stands fully applies to the case of the petitioner. In view of the proviso to Rule 13-A it cannot be said that mere change of date of start of unit amounted to giving fresh option. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that by virtue of inspection report dated 5.4.1986 last annexure to the writ petition in which it was mentioned that there were no outstanding dues against the petitioner’s unit fresh proceedings for assessment of Sugar Purchase Tax could not be initiated. However, this argument is not correct. Under Rule 13-A(4) it is provided that the owner of a unit exercising option shall at least one week before the closure of the unit for the assessment year obtain from the Assessing Officer a certificate of clearance of the Purchase Tax in form XIV. The last annexure to the writ petition has been issued after the closure of the unit and is not in form XIV. It is merely a certificate of closure of the unit. In the said certificate there is no mention that option has been exercised by the unit holder as is required by form XIV which is termed as clearance certificate. 10. It is merely a certificate of closure of the unit. In the said certificate there is no mention that option has been exercised by the unit holder as is required by form XIV which is termed as clearance certificate. 10. Accordingly, it is held that neither Deputy Sugar Commissioner nor Khandsari Inspector had any jurisdiction to reject the option and reassess the tax. 11. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Impugned notice as well as order of Deputy Sugar Commissioner are quashed. No further proceedings in pursuance of the said notice shall be taken. ———