M. C. AGARWAL, J. By this revision petition under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter refereed to as "the Act"), the dealer-revisionist challenges an order dated March 14, 1989 passed by a Full Bench of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, whereby it dismissed the dealers appeal against an order dated February 22, 1988 passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax cancelling the eligibility certificate granted to the revisionist under section 4-A of the Act. 2. I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri U. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 3. The Government of Uttar Pradesh vide Government order dated September 30, 1982 announced the scheme for exemption from sales tax in respect of new units starting production after September 30, 1982. The revisionist set up a new unit for the manufacture of glass bangles, etc. , and applied for grant of an eligibility certificate in terms of section 4-A of the Act. The certificate was issued to the revisionist vide communication dated June 29, 1984. The exemption for which the eligibility certificate was granted was to be available from December 31, 1982 for a period of five years and one of the conditions was that if the unit stopped the production permanently then the facility of exemption will be stopped. Since the eligibility certificate was not granted in time the revisionist charged sales tax from its customers and paid the same to the State Government and claimed exemption only for the period October 1, 1984 onwards. 4. Sub-section (3) of section 4-A of the Act authorises the Commissioner to cancel or amend the eligibility certificate if the eligibility certificate was misused or the dealer was not entitled to the facility under this section or is entitled to such facility for a lesser period. This power was conferred on the Commissioner by the amendment made by the U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1987 with retrospective effect form September 13, 1985. In pursuance of this power the Commissioner of Sales Tax issued notice to the revisionist proposing to cancel the eligibility certificate on various grounds and the eligibility certificate was ultimately cancelled by order dated February 22, 1988. 5. The dealer appealed to the Sales Tax Tribunal. In pursuance of this power the Commissioner of Sales Tax issued notice to the revisionist proposing to cancel the eligibility certificate on various grounds and the eligibility certificate was ultimately cancelled by order dated February 22, 1988. 5. The dealer appealed to the Sales Tax Tribunal. It did not approve several grounds set up by the Commissioner for the cancellation of the eligibility certificate but upheld the cancellation on the ground that the dealer had not manufactured goods during the period August 21, 1983 to July 26, 1984 and, therefore, it had incurred a disqualification and was not entitled to an eligibility certificate. It is this finding of the Tribunal that is challenged in the present revision petition. 6. Section 4-A (1) of the Act as it was inserted by the U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1979 stood as under : " (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 or section 3-A, the State Government may, if it is of opinion as specified in sub-section (2), by notification declare in respect of any goods that the turnover of sales within the State, by the manufacturer thereof shall, during such period not exceeding five years and in such circumstances and under such conditions, as may be specified, be exempt from sales tax or be liable to tax at such reduced rate as it may fix : Provided that every notification issued under this sub-section shall be deemed to have specified the following conditions, namely - (i) that such turnover in an assessment year does not exceed ten crores rupees; (ii) that the manufacturer has not discontinued production of such goods for a period exceeding six months at a stretch in any assessment year : Provided further that the State Government may at any time waive the condition referred to in clause (ii) of the preceding proviso if in its opinion such discontinuation for a period exceeding six months was due to the reasons beyond the control of the manufacturer. " 7. The first contention raised on behalf of the revisionist was that the eligibility certificate having been granted by the Joint Director of Industries, he alone was competent to cancel the same. " 7. The first contention raised on behalf of the revisionist was that the eligibility certificate having been granted by the Joint Director of Industries, he alone was competent to cancel the same. Reliance is placed on section 21 of the U. P. General Clauses Act which provides that the power to issue a statutory instrument includes a power to add, amend, vary or rescind any statutory instrument so issued. This does not mean that this power cannot be statutorily conferred on same other authority. The State Legislature by making a specific provision in sub-section (3) has conferred the power on the Commissioner of Sales Tax and, therefore, the Joint Director of Industries cannot exercise any power to cancel or amend an eligibility certificate for the reasons stated in sub-section (3 ). 8. The next point raised was that the power to cancel an eligibility certificate on the ground that the dealer was not entitled to it was conferred for the first time by U. P. Act No. 17 of 1987 with retrospective effect from September 13, 1985 and hence the eligibility certificate granted prior to September 13, 1985 could not be cancelled by the Commissioner. This contention too in my view has no force. Any eligibility certificate which was subsisting, i. e. , the period of exemption under which had not expired on September 13, 1985 could be dealt with by the Commissioner under powers conferred on him. There is no warrant for the contention that the power could be exercised only in respect of eligibility certificate granted after that date. 9. It was then contended that the eligibility certificate was granted to the revisionist in pursuance of a scheme announced by the Government of Uttar Pradesh through a Government Order No. 8244 dated September 30, 1982. It was in pursuance of that scheme that the eligibility certificate was issued and the said Government order did not contain any condition as contemplated in sub-clause (ii) of the provio to section 4-A that the manufacturer had not discontinued production of such goods for a period exceeding six months at a stretch in any assessment year. It was in pursuance of that scheme that the eligibility certificate was issued and the said Government order did not contain any condition as contemplated in sub-clause (ii) of the provio to section 4-A that the manufacturer had not discontinued production of such goods for a period exceeding six months at a stretch in any assessment year. According to the learned consel for the revisionist the said condition would apply only if the exemption was granted under a notification and since the exemption scheme was announced by a Government order the said condition could not be read as a part of the scheme. He pointed out that that a notification has by virtue of sub-section (29-A) of section 4 of the U. P. General Clauses Act to be published in the Gazette and since G. O. No. 8244 was not published in the Official Gazette the same could not acquire the character of a notification and consequently the aforesaid conditions (i) and (ii) could not become a part of the Government order. He also referred to the copy of the eligibility certificate which has been annexed to the writ petition and which mentions that in case the unit stops production permanently then the facility of exemption shall be stopped. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Krisons Electronic Systems Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1996] 100 STC 289; 1995 UPTC 1257 in which the said G. O. No. 8244 came up in discussion and it was held that the Government could confer exemption through a Government order as well. 10. It is true that the eligibility certificate to the revisionist was granted in pursuance of the scheme announced through the said Government order which not having been notified in the Official Gazette does not amount to a notification within the meaning of section 4-A of the Act. Therefore, the conditions stated in the proviso to section 4-A (1) could not be read into the Government order which contained a detailed scheme specifying the conditions desired to be fulfilled by a unit claiming to be exempt. Admittedly the said Government order did not provide that in case the unit did not produce goods for more than six months in an assessment year then the exemption will be withdrawn. Admittedly the said Government order did not provide that in case the unit did not produce goods for more than six months in an assessment year then the exemption will be withdrawn. The eligibility certificate granted to the revisionist stated that the exemption will be stopped if production was permanently stopped. It did not say that exemption even for the period prior to the period of stoppage would be withdrawn. Admittedly, in the present case a production was not stopped permanently and it was only discontinued for certain period that was more than six months in the assessment year 1983-84. Therefore, the Government Order No. 8244 not being a notification the conditions contained in clause (ii) of the proviso to section 4-A (1) could not be invoked against the dealer. 11. Further the provisions of section 4-A and its proviso would show that the conditions placed in clauses (i) and (ii) of the proviso have to be applied from year to year and the exemption can be denied only for a particular year in which this conditions are not fulfilled. Exemption under section 4-A is provided for different periods which can extend up to 10 years. Generally the period prescribed are 3 years, 5 years, and 7 years depending on the area where the industry is located and the extent of capital investment. An eligibility certificate is expected to issue soon after the unit has gone into production and the authority issuing the certificate cannot enforce the fulfilment of the conditions for the whole of the period. That could be done only if the eligibility certificate is granted after the expiry of the entire period of exemption. That, however, would frustrate the whole object of the scheme. Since the period of exemption ranges from three years to seven years, it cannot be expected that during this long period there would be no stoppage of production and the extent of turnover would not fluctuate. Sub-clause (i) of the proviso denies exemption if the turnover in an assessment year exceeds ten crores of rupees. Suppose there is a unit which is entitled to exemption for seven years and fulfilling the object of industrial development the unit progresses well and in the 6th or 7th year the turnover exceeds rupees ten crores. Sub-clause (i) of the proviso denies exemption if the turnover in an assessment year exceeds ten crores of rupees. Suppose there is a unit which is entitled to exemption for seven years and fulfilling the object of industrial development the unit progresses well and in the 6th or 7th year the turnover exceeds rupees ten crores. Does it mean that for fulfilling the States desire for industrial development the unit can be denied exemption for the whole period of seven years simply because its turnover in the 6th or 7th year exceeds the limit. 12. Similarly, during the long period of exemption there may arise occasions when the unit does not produce goods for more than six months in one assessment year. Suppose this happens in the last assessment year of the period of exemption of 5 years or 7 years. Would that justify the cancellation of the eligibility certificate right from the inception and deny to the dealer the exemption for all the 5 years. In my view the effect of the conditions laid down in the aforesaid proviso is that exemption will not be available only for that assessment year in which either the turnover exceeds rupees ten crores or the production is discontinued for a period exceeding six months at a stretch. To hold otherwise would in my view defeat the very purpose of the provisions contained in section 4-A and the scheme announced thereunder. Interpreting the provisions and the scheme in the way the Commissioner did that the eligibility certificate can be cancelled for the whole period would amount to asking the dealer to furnish a guarantee that during whole of the period of exemption the said conditions will be fulfilled and if there is any breach in any year the exemption for entire period will be withdrawn. No sensible industrialist would take such a risk of availing the exemption for six years and not charging sales tax from its customers and then losing the exemption for the entire period and paying tax for all the six years. I hold that when the aforesaid conditions stand breached exemption can be withdrawn only in respect of a particular assessment year and not for the entire period for which the eligibility certificate was granted. 13. I hold that when the aforesaid conditions stand breached exemption can be withdrawn only in respect of a particular assessment year and not for the entire period for which the eligibility certificate was granted. 13. In the present case the production remained closed for more than six months at a stretch in the assessment year 1983-84 from August 21, 1983 to March 31, 1984. Therefore, the Commissioner could only amend the eligibility certificate to the effect tthat the dealer would not get exemption in respect of turnover relating to the assessment year 1983-84. The exemption could be denied even by the assessing officer himself without the eligibility certificate being amended. The grant of an eligibility certificate does not amount to the grant of exemption itself. It is only a pre-condition for consideration of the claim for exemption and it is the assessing officer who has to allow the exemption during the assessment proceedings and if he finds that in any assessment year the turnover exceeds Rs. 10 crores or the production remained closed for more than six months at a stretch, it would be within his authority to deny exemption for that particular year. 14. In the present case, admittedly, the dealer had not claimed any exemption for assessment year 1983-84 and admittedly it had paid tax in respect of its turnover up to 30th September, 1984 and the exemption was claimed from October 1, 1984. Therefore, the stoppage of production during the period August 21, 1983 to March 31, 1984 had become irrelevant and of no consequence. 15. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the Commissioner was not justified in cancelling the eligibility certificate granted to the revisionist. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in dismissing the dealers appeal and upholding the cancellation. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed and setting aside the Tribunals order dated March 14, 1989, it is ordered that the revisionists Appeal No. 24 of 1988 (Bhawani Glass works, Firozabad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) stands allowed and the Commissioners order dated February 22, 1988 cancelling the eligibility certificate is quashed. The parties will bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .