https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186783 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. en-us Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Sep 2016 11:43:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186783 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. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186783