Review power cannot reopen a concluded sales tax concession decision on merits; withdrawal order was unsustainable.

The review power under Rule 28C(15) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules was confined to new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or another legally recognised ground for review. A concluded approval treating the petitioner as a "unit in pipeline" could not be reopened merely because the authority later took a different view on merits. Since the original record had already found satisfaction of the rule-based conditions for concession, the subsequent withdrawal amounted to an impermissible review in the guise of appeal. The withdrawal order was therefore unsustainable, and the earlier sales tax concession approval was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Higher Level Screening Committee could invoke its review power to withdraw sales tax concession already granted under rule 28C of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975, and whether the earlier approval of the petitioner as a "unit in pipeline" could be disturbed on the ground that the case was wrongly decided on merits.

Analysis: Rule 28C(15) permitted review only on discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The earlier decision had already recorded a finding that the petitioner satisfied the conditions of a "unit in pipeline" under rule 28C(3)(o), including registration with the Department of Industries, arrangement of land, financial arrangement, and commencement of production within the stipulated period. The later withdrawal was founded only on a fresh view that the earlier approval was erroneous on merits and not on any new material or patent error. Such a course amounts to reopening a concluded issue and using review as a substitute for appeal, which is impermissible.

Conclusion: The review order withdrawing the concession was unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The earlier approval granting the sales tax concession stood restored.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner retained the benefit of the sales tax concession, and the impugned withdrawal order could not survive judicial scrutiny.

Ratio Decidendi: A review power cannot be used to reappreciate a concluded decision on merits; it is confined to new material, an error apparent, or other legally recognised grounds for review.

---