A. N. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) VIDE an order dated April 12, 1981, the petitioner was granted eligibility certificate stating that it would be entitled to exemption for a period of five years from March 9, 1984. Armed with this eligibility certificate, the petitioner started carrying on its business assuming that it was entitled to exemption for a period of five years from March 9, 1984. On September 10, 1987, however, the Joint Director of Industries sent a letter to the petitioner stating that its unit was entitled to exemption only for the period April 1, 1984 to March 8, 1987 and that it was not entitled to exemption for the period of five years as granted by the earlier order dated April 12, 1984. This letter was followed by another letter dated December 29, 1987 issued by the Joint director of Industries to the petitioner stating that the Divisional Level Committee on a reconsideration of the matter has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to exemption only for a period of three years inasmuch as its capital investment was less than three lacs and the unit fell in the region of Meerut. ( 2 ) THE petitioner challenges the aforesaid orders firstly on the ground that the Divisional Level committee was not authorised to review its order granting exemption to the petitioner for a period of five years merely on the ground that the earlier order was wrong. It was urged that such a power vests only in the Commissioner under Section 4a (3) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The second ground of attack is that in any case the petitioners unit was legally entitled to exemption for a period of five years and consequently the Divisional Level Committee had committed no error in granting exemption for that period. Learned counsel sought to support his contention with reference to two decisions of this Court, namely, Bajaj Packwell v. State of Uttar pradesh reported in [1990] 76 STC 386 ; 1989 UPTC 88 and Accurate Electronics Put. Ltd. v. State of U. P. reported in 1989 UPTC 118. ( 3 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel representing the respondents, on the other hand, contended that legally the petitioner was not entitled to grant of exemption for a period of five years and the divisional Level Committee has, therefore, rightly reviewed its earlier order. Ltd. v. State of U. P. reported in 1989 UPTC 118. ( 3 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel representing the respondents, on the other hand, contended that legally the petitioner was not entitled to grant of exemption for a period of five years and the divisional Level Committee has, therefore, rightly reviewed its earlier order. In support, the learned Standing Counsel invited our attention to the various Government Orders and notifications on the subject, which according to the learned counsel unambiguously indicated that a unit located in Meerut and having capital investment of less than three lacs was at the relevant time entitled only to three years exemption. ( 4 ) IT is, however, not necessary to decide the issue whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of exemption for a period of five years as contended by the petitioner or only for three years as urged by the learned Standing Counsel in view of the fact that the petition is entitled to succeed on the first ground. ( 5 ) THE learned Standing Counsel did not dispute that at the relevant time, i. e. , on December 29, 1987, the power to review an order granting exemption under Section 4a vested only in the commissioner but as in the present case according to the learned Standing Counsel, there was a clear error of law, the Divisional Level Committee could review its earlier order. ( 6 ) WE are unable to agree. Admittedly, the Divisional Level Committee was not invested with the power to review its earlier order on merits. It could not, therefore, modify the order passed by it in favour of the petitioner earlier. The Divisional Level Committee has, therefore, clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in recalling its earlier order and reducing the period of exemption granted to the petitioner from five years to three years merely on the ground that in its view its earlier order disclosed an error. The power to correct errors on merits is not an inherent power and cannot be exercised unless specifically conferred by statute. Even if, therefore, the divisional Level Committee felt that its earlier order suffered from error, it could not modify the order passed by it in favour of the petitioner. Such a power has been conferred only on the commissioner under Section 4a (3) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The impugned orders hence cannot be sustained. Even if, therefore, the divisional Level Committee felt that its earlier order suffered from error, it could not modify the order passed by it in favour of the petitioner. Such a power has been conferred only on the commissioner under Section 4a (3) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The impugned orders hence cannot be sustained. ( 7 ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated September 10, 1987 and December 29, 1987 marked respectively as annexures 2 and 4 to the petition are quashed. We further direct that the tax determined under the impugned orders of assessment vide annexures 5, 6 and 8 to the petition shall not be realised from the petitioner until the eligibility certificate granted to the petitioner on November 12, 1984, is modified in accordance with law. .