ORDER S.C. Verma, J. - This review petition has been filed against the order dated 20-7-1983 passed by Hon'ble B. N. Sapru, J. setting aside the remand order dated 23-5-1984 and the notice of demand dated 20-6-1984 in respect of purchase tax for the assessment Year 1980- 81. The Special Leave petition of the State was dismissed as withdrawn to enable them to file the present review petition. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Full Bench decision in M/s. Satish Prakash Ajay Kumar v. Assistant Sugarcane Commissioner, 1980 UPTC 64 : 1980 Tax LR 1627 was not considered in M/s. Krishna Sugar Factory v. State of U.P., 1981 UPTC 443 : 1981 All LJ 93 while interpreting the provisions of S. 3(i) (1 A) and (1B) of the U.P. Sugarcane purchase Tax Act, 1961. As the law laid down in the Full Bench was not noticed by the Division Bench, the matter requires consideration by larger Bench. According to the learned counsel, the option once exercised by the owner of the unit under the proviso to sub-section (1A) of S. 3(i) of the Act, It shall be irrevocable for that year and the option relates to the unit as a whole which may consist of any number of crushers. It has been alleged that the option is to be exercised in respect of there entire unit and not on the basis of number of crushers used during the season. 3. Before considering the legal aspect of the matter, in the present case, while exercising the option in Form 13A, the assessee had made an endorsement that he would operate only one crusher out of two which constituted the unit. The option in this Form was accepted by the authorities. Thus the option which was exercised and accepted in respect of the unit was for one crusher which would deem to comprise the unit. In this case, from the very beginning till the end only one crusher was used and thus the unit for the purposes of exercise of option for payment of tax on assumed basis was treated to be consisting of one crusher. 4. In this case, from the very beginning till the end only one crusher was used and thus the unit for the purposes of exercise of option for payment of tax on assumed basis was treated to be consisting of one crusher. 4. The learned single Judge considered the law laid down in the Full Bench decision of M/s. Satish Prakash Ajay Kumar (supra) and it was observed that while accepting the option in form 13A, the Full Bench was not faced with a situation in which the unit was treated to comprise of lesser number of crushers than the total number of crushers for which licence was granted to the unit. In the case before the Full Bench, the claim was in respect of intermittent closure as also the closure of some of the crushers after the start of the unit. The option exercised in Form 13A was initially in respect of the entire unit consisting of three crushers. It was in these circumstances that it was held that the option was in respect of the entire unit consisting of three crushers and subsequently in case some of the crushers are closed, no benefit can be given for the closure of part of the unit and the assessment has to be made in respect of the entire unit. The functioning of the crushers comprised in a unit would not affect the consideration of the unit as a whole irrespective of the fact whether any particular crusher functioned or was out of commission for any interim period or not. In these circumstances, the Full Bench held that the option exercised would be treated for the unit as a whole and the crushers comprising in it are mere components thereof. 5. The liability to pay tax on assumed basis would depend on the total tax calculated in accordance with the criteria laid down for calculation of tax for a particular category of the unit, which is based on the type and size of the crushers. The problem faced by the Division Bench in the case of M/s. Krishna Sugar Factory (supra) was similar and it was held that irrevocability contemplated does not apply to declaration relating to the number of crusher or bels which comprised the unit as in the case of period for starting and closing the unit. The problem faced by the Division Bench in the case of M/s. Krishna Sugar Factory (supra) was similar and it was held that irrevocability contemplated does not apply to declaration relating to the number of crusher or bels which comprised the unit as in the case of period for starting and closing the unit. The tax itself is calculated on the basis of number of crushers, its size and working capacity. Thus the declaration of number of crushers at the time of exercise of option cannot be treated as irrevocable. In case at the time of exercise of option, the unit is indicated to be comprised of lesser number of crushers, the unit will comprise of those number of crushers and not the number for which originally the licence was granted. The unit of the assessee would stand modified in accordance with the declaration made in Form a which is required to be submitted in accordance with Rule 13A. The law laid down in the Division Bench was on all force applicable and the learned single Judge rightly followed the Division Bench. 6. In the present case even though the unit of the petitioner initially comprised of two crushers for which the licence was granted but at the time when the option was exercised, it was exercised for a unit comprising of only one crusher and as such, the liability to pay purchase tax on assumed basis would be in respect of one crusher which comprised the unit. Moreover the irrevocability provided in sub-sec. (1 B) is in respect of option to pay tax on assumed basis and not in respect of crusher which comprises a unit. In my opinion, the learned single Judge has rightly held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down in the Full Bench decision would not be applicable as it is distinguishable on facts. In this case, even though the unit of the petitioner consisted of two crushers, but for the purposes of exercise of option on assumed basis, the unit would be treated to be comprised of only one crusher. In this case, even though the unit of the petitioner consisted of two crushers, but for the purposes of exercise of option on assumed basis, the unit would be treated to be comprised of only one crusher. The petitioner at the very initial stage at the time of submission of option in form 8 specifically mentioned that only one crusher would function for the entire season and as such the petitioner's unit would be treated to be consisting of only one crusher irrespective of the fact that the licence had been granted for two crushers. The option in this form has also been accepted by the assessing authority. The present is not a case in which the option of the unit was exercised initially for all the crushers which comprised the unit and later on there was closure in respect of one or some of the crushers. Under these circumstances, the unit has to be taken as an undivided whole and the fact that for certain period during the assessment year some of the crushers were out of commission and that notice in this regard was duly intimated would not provide any remission for determination of liability of purchase tax on assumed basis for the entire unit. Thus the irrevocability contemplated does not apply to declaration relating to the number of crushers or bels which shall comprise the unit and the declaration in this regard can be altered at the initial stages. 7. The argument of the applicants in the review petition tested on the anvil of the aforesaid law, the exercise of option under proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 3 cannot be treated to be irrevocable in respect of the whole unit for which the owner holds the licence. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned single Judge has committed no error in following the law laid down in the case of M/s. Krishna Sugar Factory (supra). 9. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.