Judgment 1. This is a petition for quashing of the decision of the Lower Level Screening Committee (in short, "the LLSC") and Higher Level Screening Committee (in short, "the HLSC") by which the petitioners prayer for grant of exemption/deferment certificate has been rejected. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner set-up a new industrial unit at village Kamimajara, Raipur Road, Yamuna Nagar, by spending over rupees one crore. After completing the necessary formalities, it submitted an application dated May 13, 1999 to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Yamuna Nagar, for grant of tax exemption. The LLSC rejected its application on December 6, 1999 primarily on the ground that in its meeting held on July 1, 1999 the HLSC had rejected number of appeals/ applications for grant of sales tax exemption to the industrial units which had not obtained change of land use certificate from the Department of Town and Country Planning. The operative part of the decision taken by the LLSC, which is incorporated in the memo annexure P-2 dated December 24, 1999 sent to the petitioner by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Yamuna Nagar, is reproduced below : "No one appeared on behalf of the unit before the committee. The committee observed that despite of various opportunities afforded the unit, it has failed to produce change of land use certificate. HLSC in its meeting held on dated July 1, 1999 have rejected number of appeals/applications for the grant of sales tax exemption to the industrial units which have not obtained the CLU from Department of Town and Country Planning. In the light of above, the committee decided to reject the application of the unit for the grant of sales tax exemption." 3. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the HLSC on May 25, 2000 in the following terms : "Shri Maninder Singh, Advocate appeared before the committee on behalf of the industrial unit. The case was considered by the committee. After the due deliberation the committee decided to reject the appeal as the party failed to furnish change of land use permission as enjoined under Sub-rule (3)(f)(vi) of Rule 28-B, despite various opportunities offered by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Yamuna Nagar." 4. The case was considered by the committee. After the due deliberation the committee decided to reject the appeal as the party failed to furnish change of land use permission as enjoined under Sub-rule (3)(f)(vi) of Rule 28-B, despite various opportunities offered by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Yamuna Nagar." 4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders mainly on the ground that the decision taken by the HLSC in its meeting held on July 1, 1999 to decline exemption/deferment certificate on the ground of non-production of change of land use certificate has been set aside by the High Court. It has challenged the appellate order on an additional ground that the HLSC has gravely erred by invoking Rule 28-B(3)(f)(vi) of Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules") because the said Rule was not in existence on the date of submission of the application and the State Government does not have the power to make rules with retrospective effect. 5. The respondents have justified the impugned decisions on the ground that along with the application filed in form ST-70, the petitioner had not produced change of land use certificate issued by the department of Town and Country Planning. They have also justified the invoking of Rule 28-B(3)(f)(vi) of the Rules by contending that in terms of Rule 28-B(3)(a) the operative period for claiming the benefit of tax exemption commences from August 1, 1997. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In our opinion, the decisions of the LLSC and HLSC deserves to be quashed because the reasons assigned therein are legally unsustainable. In Nice Spinners Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State of Haryana (C.W.P. No. 9005 of 2000 decided on August 21, 2000) Reported in [2001] 121 STC 456 (P&H) this Court had quashed the decision taken by the HLSC in its meeting held on July 1, 1999 and directed fresh adjudication of the appeals filed by the petitioners in the context of their plea of discrimination. In view of that decision, the rejection of the petitioners application by the LLSC on the ground of rejection of similar appeals/applications by the HLSC cannot be sustained. 8. In view of that decision, the rejection of the petitioners application by the LLSC on the ground of rejection of similar appeals/applications by the HLSC cannot be sustained. 8. The order passed by the H.L.S.C. dismissing the petitioners appeal also deserves to be set aside because the provisions contained in Rule 28-B(3)(f)(vi) of the Act which have been relied upon by the HLSC for declining the petitioners prayer could not have been applied to its case. Admittedly, Rule 28-B was notified in the official gazette on May 18, 1999, i.e., 6 days after the submission of the application by the petitioner for grant of exemption certificate. Section 64(2)(ff) and (oo) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 under which Rule 28-B has been framed does not empower the State Government to frame such rules with retrospective effect. Therefore, Rule 28-B can be invoked for deciding applications filed after May 18, 1999 and not those filed prior to that date. 9. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned decisions taken by the LLSC and the HLSC with the direction to the HLSC to decide the petitioners appeal afresh within three months of the submission/receipt of certified copy of this order after hearing its representative.