Strict construction of taxing rules limits withdrawal of eligibility certificates to express grounds and requires hearing before action.

A statutory eligibility certificate under Rule 28A could be withdrawn only on grounds expressly listed in sub-rule (8), and the authorities could not add non-production of change of land use permission as a new basis for withdrawal. The taxing rule had to be construed strictly, so withdrawal on an unenumerated ground was invalid. The record also showed that the affected unit was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the certificate was withdrawn, rendering the action void for breach of natural justice. The impugned withdrawal was quashed, though fresh action was left open only on grounds expressly available under the rule.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the withdrawal of the eligibility certificate was invalid for want of notice and hearing; (ii) whether the certificate could be withdrawn on the ground of non-production of change of land use permission when that ground was not one of the grounds specified in the governing rule.

Issue (i): Whether the withdrawal of the eligibility certificate was invalid for want of notice and hearing.

Analysis: The affected unit was entitled to a reasonable opportunity of being heard before withdrawal of the eligibility certificate. The record showed that no such opportunity had been afforded before the impugned action was taken.

Conclusion: The withdrawal was invalid for breach of natural justice and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the certificate could be withdrawn on the ground of non-production of change of land use permission when that ground was not one of the grounds specified in the governing rule.

Analysis: The eligibility certificate had been granted under Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975, and the grounds for withdrawal were confined to those expressly enumerated in sub-rule (8). Non-production of change of land use permission was not among the specified grounds. As a taxing provision, the rule had to be construed strictly, and the authorities could not add a new ground for withdrawal.

Conclusion: The certificate could not be withdrawn on the impugned ground.

Final Conclusion: The impugned withdrawal of the eligibility certificate was quashed, while leaving it open to the authorities to proceed afresh only on any ground that is expressly available under the rule.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory benefit granted under a taxing rule can be withdrawn only on grounds expressly provided by the rule, and any withdrawal made without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing is invalid.

---