Subsidy scheme control over review power led to withdrawal of interest subsidy being held without jurisdiction.

The subsidy scheme governed entitlement and procedure, so once eligibility had been recognised and the earlier sanction order issued, the successor authority could not reopen the matter by invoking the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The scheme did not confer any power of review, and any dispute on interpretation had to be referred under clause 11 to the Finance Department of the State Government. The attempt to characterise the withdrawal as rectification under section 33 of the Act was rejected because the action was treated as an unauthorised review rather than a permissible correction of mistake. The withdrawal of subsidy and demand was held without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the authority could withdraw the earlier sanction of interest subsidy by invoking the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 instead of following the procedure under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy, 2003, and whether the impugned order was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The subsidy scheme itself governed entitlement and procedure. Once the petitioner was found eligible and the earlier sanction order was passed, the successor authority could not reopen the matter by invoking section 59 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Scheme did not confer a power of review, and where a dispute as to interpretation arose, clause 11 required reference to the Finance Department of the State Government. The attempt to justify the withdrawal as rectification under section 33 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was not accepted, because the impugned action was treated as an unauthorized exercise of review power rather than a permissible correction of a mistake.

Conclusion: The impugned order withdrawing the subsidy and raising demand was held to be without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

---