Revisional authority cannot cancel industrial exemption certificates indirectly, and interest fails once the withdrawal lacks jurisdiction.

The revisional authority under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act and Rule 28A could not indirectly cancel or modify an eligibility certificate or exemption certificate issued by the competent authorities under the industrial incentive scheme. The power to grant, cancel, or withdraw the eligibility certificate lay with the screening committee, and the power to issue or cancel the exemption certificate lay with the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. As the withdrawal of exemption was without jurisdiction, no enforceable tax demand survived and interest could not be levied on the notional liability. The exemption position granted by the competent authorities was therefore restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority had jurisdiction under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 to withdraw or modify the eligibility certificate and exemption certificate granted to the industrial unit. (ii) Whether interest could be levied on the tax demand after the exemption benefit was withdrawn.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority had jurisdiction under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 to withdraw or modify the eligibility certificate and exemption certificate granted to the industrial unit.

Analysis: The statutory scheme placed the power to grant, cancel, or withdraw the eligibility certificate with the screening committee and the power to issue or cancel the exemption certificate with the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. Section 40 of the Act enabled revision of assessment proceedings, but did not authorise the revisional authority to go behind or indirectly cancel certificates issued by the competent authorities under section 13B and Rule 28A. The exemption scheme was to be construed in light of its object of industrial development, and the relevant date for benefit was the commencement of production as accepted by the competent authorities.

Conclusion: The revisional authority lacked jurisdiction to withdraw or modify the exemption benefit, and the order sustaining such withdrawal was invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether interest could be levied on the tax demand after the exemption benefit was withdrawn.

Analysis: Once the withdrawal of exemption was held to be without jurisdiction, the foundation for treating the amount as tax due disappeared. The liability was only notional for assessment purposes, and no enforceable tax demand survived on which interest could validly be charged.

Conclusion: Interest was not leviable.

Final Conclusion: The assessment-related orders could not stand insofar as they denied the exemption benefit, and the writ petition succeeded by restoring the tax exemption position granted by the competent authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority exercising power over an assessment cannot indirectly cancel or withdraw an exemption or eligibility certificate issued by the competent authority under a statutory incentive scheme unless the statute expressly confers such power.

---