By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution petitioner, Alpha Chem, has challenged vires of the provisions of section 4-A (3) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, "the Act" ). 2. Before dealing with the actual point in issue, it is necessary to state as to how this case came to be listed before this Bench after innings up to the apex Court. 3. Petitioner No. 1, Alpha Chem, is a registered partnership finn of which petitioner No. 2 is a partner. The firm is registered under the provisions of the U. P. as well as Central Sales Tax Acts and has a factory at C-17/18, Industrial Area, Bulandshahar Road, Ghaziabad, where it is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of blowing agent and processing of aluminium silicate. On an application made by the petitioner No. 1, it was granted an eligibility certificate on December 5, 1984 by the Joint Director of Industries, Western Region, Meerut, for grant of exemption from payment of sales tax under section 4-A of the Act. The said eligibility certificate (annexure 1 to the writ petition) was valid for a period of 5 years with effect from April 1, 1983 to March 31, 1988. However, a notice dated August 18, 1987 (annexure 2 to the writ petition) under section 4-A (3) of the Act was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner (A. N. R.), Sales Tax, U. P. to show cause as to why the eligibility certificate dated December 5, 1984 issued to the petitioner be not cancelled. The aforesaid notice was replied to by the petitioner vide letter dated September 3, 1987 (annexure 3 to the writ petition) contesting all the points raised in the notice. 4. Thereafter, vide another letter dated February 17, 1988 (annexure 4 to the writ petition) petitioner raised an objection that Commissioner of Sales Tax has no authority and jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 4-A (3) of the Act. The Commissioner of Sales Tax vide order dated February 27, 1988 (annexure 5 to the writ petition) cancelled the eligibility certificate dated December 5, 1984. Hence this petition. 5. The Commissioner of Sales Tax vide order dated February 27, 1988 (annexure 5 to the writ petition) cancelled the eligibility certificate dated December 5, 1984. Hence this petition. 5. This petition was listed before a division Bench of this Court which dismissed the petition with the observation that it will be open to the petitioner to raise contention with regard to the validity of section 4-A (3) of the Act in the revision filed by him, against which petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14336 of 1990 and their Lordships of apex Court (See Alpha Chem v. (See Alpha Chem v. State of U. P. [1993] 89 STC 304 (SC)) relying upon K. S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras [1966] 17 STC 418 (SC) at pages 436 and 437; [1966] 2 SCR 229 at pages 247 and 248 and holding that the authorities under the Act cannot go into the vires of the very statute under which they are constituted and draw their power and jurisdiction from, so is the High Court in matters arising before it from proceedings under the Act to examine the constitutionality of the statute and its provisions, set aside the order of this Court and remitted the writ petition to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law. However, the apex Court made it clear that the High Court can, of course, deal with the question of constitutionality in judicial review of legislation under article 226. This is how this petition came to be listed now before this Court. 6. Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. , has no jurisdiction whatsoever to cancel or modify the eligibility certificate once granted to a new unit as the certificate is granted by the committee consisting of Divisional Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax and the Regional Director of Industries and in case of any difference of opinion between the Director of Industries and the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. , the matter was to be referred to the State Government to be considered by a Committee of the Principal Secretary (Industries), Finance Secretary and the Secretary, Institutional Finance for taking final decision. This provision is notified by the State Government of U. P. vide Notification No. ST-II-7558/x-9 (208)-1981-U. P. Act XV-48-Order-85, dated December 26, 1985 in exercise of the powers under section 4-A of the Act. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that prior to September 13, 1985, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. , was not having any power to cancel the eligibility certificate and that it was for the first time that by inserting sub-section (3) in section 4-A of the Act with effect from September 13, 1985, by U. P. Act No. 25 of 1985 that power to cancel the eligibility certificate was conferred on the Commissioner only in the event of its misuse. But the scope for cancellation was further expanded by empowering the Commissioner to cancel the eligibility certificate even in the event if it is found that the new unit to which eligibility certificate has been granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act is not entitled to the facility under this section, vide U. P. Act No. 17 of 1987 with effect from September 13, 1985. In this context it is submitted that since the provisions by which power to cancel the eligibility certificate has been conferred on the Commissioner, have not been given retrospective effect before or prior to September 13, 1985 and since in the instant case petitioner was granted eligibility certificate on December 5, 1984, i. e. , prior to commencement of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 4-A of the Act, hence Commissioner has no jurisdiction whatsoever to cancel or modify the eligibility certificate granted to the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel also contended that the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. , is only a member of Divisional Level Committee for considering grant of eligibility certificate and in the event of any difference of opinion between the Director of Industries and the Commissioner of Sales Tax the matter is to be referred to the State Government hence the Commissioner of Sales Tax has no authority and jurisdiction to cancel the eligibility certificate granted to the petitioner. 9. 9. Having heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. N. Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel it appears necessary to reproduce the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 4-A of the Act as it stands today : " (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 (2) 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 the 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. " 10. Thus from the abovequoted provision it is clear that if in the opinion of Commissioner of Sales Tax, facility of exemption, obtained on the basis of an eligibility certificate, has been misused in any manner whatsoever or that the new unit has committed breach of any other condition subject to which the facility of exemption from tax was granted, he may, by order in writing, cancel or amend the eligibility certificate. This being the position of the provision, it is well within the power, authority and jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Sales Tax to cancel the eligibility certificate if it is found that the facility of exemption has been misused in any manner whatsoever or any of the conditions on which facility was granted has been violated. 11. Therefore, it is not, that once the eligibility certificate is granted on the recommendations of Divisional Level Committee, the same cannot be cancelled or modified subsequently and that the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. , is a member of Divisional Level Committee, hence subsequently he cannot cancel the certificate. It is a case of split of personality. In the Divisional Level Committee the Commissioner performs in the capacity of its member along with other members but it does not mean that having performed as member of Divisional Level Committee, the Commissioner cannot function as Commissioner of Sales Tax. Under sub-section (3) of section 4-A of the Act, the Commissioner derives the authority to cancel the eligibility certificate. 12. As regards the contention of Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal that the power to cancel the eligibility certificate conferred on the Commissioner has not been given retrospective effect earlier to September 13, 1985, it is relevant to mention that assuming prior to September 13, 1985 Commissioner was not having any such power and such power has been conferred on the Commissioner for the first time with effect from September 13, 1985; it means that before September 13, 1985, Commissioner was not in a position to pass order cancelling eligibility certificate but after September 13, 1985 he came in a position to pass such order and in the instant case Commissioner has passed the order cancelling eligibility certificate on February 27, 1988, i. e. , after September 13, 1985. The U. P. Act No. 25 of 1985 which conferred power to cancel on the Commissioner with effect from September 13, 1985 itself empowers the Commissioner to cancel the eligibility certificate from such date whether before or after the date of such order as may be specified therein. It means that the Commissioner is empowered to cancel eligibility certificates which were granted even earlier to September 13, 1985. It does not mean that the eligibility certificates granted earlier to September 13, 1985 cannot be cancelled even after September 13, 1985. 13. It means that the Commissioner is empowered to cancel eligibility certificates which were granted even earlier to September 13, 1985. It does not mean that the eligibility certificates granted earlier to September 13, 1985 cannot be cancelled even after September 13, 1985. 13. This being the position of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 4-A of the Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 4-A of the Act do not suffer from any legal infirmity or constitutional infirmity or legislative incompetence warranting any interference by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution and no question of vires is involved in the context in which learned counsel has raised the question of vires; in view of the clarification made above that under sub-section (3) of section 4-A, Commissioner of Sales Tax can cancel or modify or amend the eligibility certificate if he finds that the facility of exemption has been misused in any manner whatsoever or any of the conditions on which facility was granted has been violated. 14. In the instant case, since the revision of petitioners is pending before this Court, we have refrained ourselves from making any discussion about the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner except the discussions which were necessary to clarify the legal position. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of finally. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. .