The Commissioner's power to cancel or amend an eligibility certificate under Section 4-A(3) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously. The Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings under Section 4-A(3) after a long delay, especially when the dealer has already availed the benefit of the exemption and the Government Order relied upon by the Commissioner does not apply to the dealer.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is directed against an order dated April 26, 1999 passed by a Full Bench of the Trade Tax Tribunal in Appeal No. 55 of 1998 by which it has affirmed an order dated March 27, 1998 passed by the Commissioner of trade Tax, U. P. , Lucknow by which the latter had amended the eligibility certificate granted to the revisionist for the period January 9, 1983 to January 8, 1988 and restricted the period of exemption for the period January 9, 1983 to August 26, 1984.

( 2 ) I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate for the revisionist and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondent.

( 3 ) THE revisionist set up a new industrial unit for the manufacture of atta, maida, and suji. The government of U. P. had issued a Government Order No. 8244 dated September 30, 1982 under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (now "the U. P. Trade Tax Act") providing exemption from sales tax to new units. It was under the Government order that the petitioner applied for and was granted an eligibility certificate by the Divisional Level Committee granting it exemption from the sales tax for a period of five years with effect from January 9, 1983. The period of exemption expired on the January 8, 1988. Under Section 4-A (3) the Commissioner has the power to cancel or amend the eligibility certificate. The said provision of law stands as under :

" (3) Where the Commissioner of Sales Tax is of the opinion that the facility of exemption from, or reduction in the rate of tax obtained on the basis of an eligibility certificate referred to in clause (d) of Sub-section (1) or on the basis of any eligibility certificate issued under any executive orders of the Government issued before or after September 13, 1985 has been misused in any manner whatsoever or that the new unit has committed breach of any of the conditions, subject to which the facility of exemption from, or reduction in the rate of tax was granted or that the new unit to which the eligibility certificate has been granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act is not entitled to facility under this section or is entitled to such facility for a lesser period or from a different date he may, by order in writing passed before or after the expiration of the period of exemption or reduction, cancel or amend the eligibility certificate from a date specified in the order and such date may be prior to the date of such order, so however, that in cases of misuse or breach, the cancellation of eligibility certificate shall have effect not before the date of such misuse or breach : provided that no order under this Sub-Section shall be passed without giving the dealers a reasonable opportunity of being heard. "

( 4 ) IN exercise of this power, the Commissioner earlier issued a notice for cancellation of the eligibility certificate on the ground that the exemption under Section 4-A was eligible only to units that started production after October 1, 1982. This dealer, according to the Commissioner, had started production prior to that date and was, therefore, not entitled to exemption under section 4-A. This proceeding terminated in favour of the revisionist and by an order dated July 10, 1989 the Commissioner recalled the notice under Section 4-A. Again after a lapse of almost 8 years, the Commissioner issued a notice to the revisionist proposing to cancel or modifying the eligibility certificate in exercise of powers under Section 4-A (3) on the ground that by virtue of the Government Order dated August 27, 1984 the dealer could not avail the benefit of exemption on the purchase of raw materials under Section 4-B and on the sale of goods manufactured by it under Section 4-A and for availing exemption under Section 4-A, it should have opted not to avail the exemption under Section 4-B and since this was not done, the exemption under Section 4-A was not admissible to the revisioni