Statutory benefit granted in breach of governing rules can be reviewed, treated as void ab initio, and cancelled retrospectively.

A statutory authority may invoke suo motu review where an eligibility certificate was granted in clear breach of the governing rule, because an order made in disregard of a legal restriction reflects an apparent mistake of law. A grant made without jurisdiction is non est and may be treated as invalid from the outset, allowing retrospective cancellation where the withdrawal framework contemplates such operation. Promissory estoppel cannot protect an illegal benefit or override a statutory limitation. The core principle stated is that a benefit conferred contrary to the rule is void ab initio and can be recalled on review with retrospective effect.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the authority could validly exercise suo motu review to cancel the eligibility certificate granted contrary to law; (ii) Whether the eligibility certificate, having been issued in breach of the governing rule, was void ab initio so as to justify cancellation with retrospective effect.

Issue (i): Whether the authority could validly exercise suo motu review to cancel the eligibility certificate granted contrary to law.

Analysis: The review power under the governing sales tax statute was competent to be invoked where the original grant of eligibility certificate had been made in clear disregard of the statutory restriction contained in the rules. The order described as a revision was treated as a review, since the authority had in substance reconsidered its own earlier order. An apparent mistake of law and failure to apply the governing rule furnished a valid basis for review.

Conclusion: The suo motu review was validly exercised.

Issue (ii): Whether the eligibility certificate, having been issued in breach of the governing rule, was void ab initio so as to justify cancellation with retrospective effect.

Analysis: The eligibility certificate had been granted in direct contravention of the rule restricting such benefit to specified goods in the municipal area. An authority created by statute could not ignore that restriction or relax it. A grant made without jurisdiction was non est in law and could be treated as invalid from the outset. The provision dealing with withdrawal of remission also contemplated retrospective operation in appropriate cases, and promissory estoppel could not be invoked to protect an illegal benefit.

Conclusion: The eligibility certificate was void ab initio and retrospective cancellation was lawful.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the cancellation failed because the original certificate had been issued without legal authority and could be withdrawn on review with retrospective effect.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory benefit granted in direct contravention of the governing rule is void ab initio and may be recalled on review, and illegality cannot be protected by promissory estoppel or by insisting on prospective cancellation only.

---