Eligibility certificate withdrawal is limited to prescribed grounds; material concealment and misrepresentation can still justify cancellation.

Rule 28A(8)(a) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules exhaustively specified the grounds on which an eligibility certificate could be withdrawn, so it could not be cancelled on a ground outside that scheme. Mere non-production of an NOC/CLU certificate did not, by itself, justify withdrawal. However, where the applicant suppressed that the unit stood on agricultural land and failed to disclose the required conversion permission, the omission amounted to concealment and misrepresentation of material facts. On that basis, withdrawal was valid under the rule's fraud and concealment ground.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an eligibility certificate issued under rule 28A(5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 could be withdrawn on a ground other than those specified in rule 28A(8)(a); (ii) whether non-production of the NOC/CLU certificate in the present case amounted to a ground for withdrawal within rule 28A(8)(a).

Issue (i): Whether an eligibility certificate issued under rule 28A(5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 could be withdrawn on a ground other than those specified in rule 28A(8)(a).

Analysis: Rule 28A(8)(a) specifically enumerated the circumstances in which an eligibility certificate could be withdrawn. The accompanying rule 28A(8)(b) imposed penal consequences only when withdrawal was made under those specified circumstances. The scheme of the rule therefore indicated that the power of withdrawal was not a general or implied power under section 19 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898, and that the general rule of construction could not override the specific regulatory scheme. Where the rules prescribe both the conditions for grant and the conditions for withdrawal, withdrawal can be made only on the prescribed grounds unless a wider discretion is expressly reserved.

Conclusion: An eligibility certificate could not be withdrawn on a ground outside rule 28A(8)(a).

Issue (ii): Whether non-production of the NOC/CLU certificate in the present case amounted to a ground for withdrawal within rule 28A(8)(a).

Analysis: The mere omission to furnish the NOC/CLU certificate did not by itself fall within rule 28A(8)(a). However, the application form required disclosure of permission for conversion of agricultural land where the unit was situated on such land. The respondent did not produce the certificate and also suppressed the fact that the unit stood on agricultural land. That omission constituted concealment and misrepresentation of a material fact, because disclosure would have revealed that the certificate was necessary and that the claim to exemption could not be entertained without it. The withdrawal was therefore referable to fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, misstatement, or concealment of material facts under rule 28A(8)(a)(i).

Conclusion: The withdrawal was valid under rule 28A(8)(a)(i) because the certificate had been obtained by concealment and misrepresentation of material facts.

Final Conclusion: The State's challenge succeeded, and the withdrawal of the eligibility certificates was upheld on the footing of material concealment and misrepresentation rather than on the bare ground of non-production of the NOC/CLU certificate.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory benefit certificate governed by a rule that exhaustively specifies the grounds of withdrawal can be cancelled only on those grounds, and non-disclosure of a material fact that induced the grant may amount to concealment or misrepresentation justifying withdrawal where the rules so provide.

---