- (1.) THIS petition seeks quashing of order dated February 23, 2005, annexure P 5, passed by the Lower Level Screening Committee, withdrawing eligibility certificate granted to the petitioner under rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short, "the Rules"), appellate order dated December 2, 2005, annexure P 12 passed by Higher Level Screening Committee rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against order, annexure P 5, consequential proceedings for recovery vide notice dated May 4, 2006, annexure P 6 and recovery summons dated June 1, 2005, annexure P 7, seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 1,70,79,412.
(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that it applied for exemption from sales tax under rule 28A of the Rules and the same was granted vide eligibility certificate dated February 21, 2003, annexure P 3 for the period from March 28, 1998 to March 27, 2005 subject to the limit of the amount specified therein. After the petitioner had already availed of the benefit, it came to light that the petitioner was not eligible to the exemption as its unit was in the negative list being ethyl alcohol based industry for which exemption could not be granted. On January 29, 2002, proceedings for withdrawal of eligibility certificate were initiated and decision to withdraw eligibility certificate was taken on December 16, 2004. Case of the petitioner was that its unit was not using ethyl alcohol but using denatured spirit which was different. This plea was rejected having regard to the report of the technical expert that chemical formula of ethyl/ethanol was same as that of rectified spirit which was also called industrial alcohol. Reliance was also placed on judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Yaka International v. : ILR1996KAR2405 . Report has been annexed as annexure R. 6/III.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once eligibility cer -tificate was granted, the same cannot be withdrawn or cancelled on any ground except those enumerated under rule 28A(8) of the Rules and that too can be done during the currency of the eligibility certificate and not after the expiry thereof. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that since the peti -tioner was not eligible for the exemption, grant of exemption being void ab initio; the illegality could not be permitted to be perpetuated merely on the ground that the petitioner had already availed of the benefit or that the currency of the eligibility certificate had expired.;