A. KABIR, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition at the instance of the Revenue is directed against the judgment and order passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal on 18th January, 2001, in Case No. R. N. 269 of 1999 quashing the order dated 2nd July, 1998 and 25th May, 1999 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Special Cell and the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Special Cell, respectively canceling the Eligibility Certificate issued to the respondent No. 2 herein under section 39 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as the "said Act" with retrospective effect. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 2 is carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Adarsh Polymers which is an industrial unit duly registered with the Directorate of Cottage and Small Scale Industries. It began operations in May, 1996, with new plant and machinery for manufacture of HDPE Cloth and Bags. On the application of the respondent No. 2 the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Special Cell, by his order dated 16th June, 1997, issued Eligibility Certificate in favour of the said respondent under section 39 of the said Act for the period from 1st July, 1996 to 30th June, 1999. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 was asked to show-cause as to why the Eligibility Certificate issued in his favour should not be cancelled and ultimately the respondent No. 2 was served with an order dated 19th February, 1998, canceling the said Eligibility Certificate. On challenge by the respondent No. 2, the said order was quashed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal with liberty to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, special Cell, to proceed afresh. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the order of the learned Tribunal fresh proceedings for cancellation of the Eligibility Certificate were started and ultimately the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Special Cell, by his order dated 20th July, 1998, cancelled the Eligibility Certificate issued in favour of the respondent No. 2 with effect from 1st July, 1996. The said order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Special Cell by his order dated 25th May, 1999. The said order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Special Cell by his order dated 25th May, 1999. ( 4 ) BOTH the orders were challenged by the respondent No. 2 herein before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in R. N. case No. 269 of 1999 which, as indicated above, was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by quashing the said orders dated 20th July, 1998 and 25th May, 1999, upon holding that the Eligibility Certificate issued to the respondent No. 2 herein could not be cancelled with retrospective effect as had been done in the instant case. ( 5 ) THE Revenue has question the said finding of the learned Tribunal in the light of the facts leading to the cancellation of the Eligibility Certificate from the date of its inception. ( 6 ) APPEARING for the Revenue, Mr. Pranab Dutta, learned advocate, submitted that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the Eligibility Certificate issued in favour of the respondent No. 2 could not be cancelled with retrospective effect, was not sustainable in the special facts of this case. Mr. Dutta submitted that the Eligibility Certificate had been obtained by the respondent No. 2 by practicing fraud and as a result thereof the issuance of such certificate stood vitiated from the date when it came into effect. ( 7 ) MR. Dutta submitted that pursuant to an investigation conducted by the Bureau of Investigation, it was discovered that not only had the Eligibility Certificate been obtained by the respondent No. 2 by misrepresentation and fraud but the same had been utilised by the said respondent for purchasing tax-free granules and by showing purported sales of manufactured goods and claiming deduction on such sales under section 39 of the said Act. Mr. Dutta urged that despite the very limited capacity of the production unit of the respondent No. 2 and the infrastructures available the records showed a phenomenal growth of 36. 50% in turnover in just a year which revealed evasion of tax to a huge degree. Mr. Dutta urged that despite the very limited capacity of the production unit of the respondent No. 2 and the infrastructures available the records showed a phenomenal growth of 36. 50% in turnover in just a year which revealed evasion of tax to a huge degree. Pursuant thereto show cause notices were issued to the respondent No. 2 and ultimately in exercise of powers under Rule 101 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Special Cell, by his order dated 2nd July, 1998, ordered cancellation of the Eligibility Certificate issued in favour of the respondent No. 2 with retrospective effect from the date it came into effect and the said order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 25th May, 1999. ( 8 ) MR. Dutta submitted that since the respondent No. 2 had not only obtained the Eligibility Certificate by misrepresentation and fraud, but had flagrantly violated the terms and conditions thereof, he would not be entitled to any exemption under the said Certificate and the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, special Cell, had quite rightly directed the same to be cancelled from the date it had become effective. ( 9 ) MR. Dutta also urged that an assessee who obtains an Exemption Certificate on false and fabricated information with the intention of evading payment of tax cannot take shelter under a fiction of law to deprive the Government exchequer of its revenue by enjoying any benefit of exemption thereunder. ( 10 ) MR. Dutta submitted that the learned Tribunal had erred in applying the decisions cited on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in the special facts of this case since it has consistently been held by the Courts that fraud vitiates everything. ( 11 ) IN support of his submissions Mr. Dutta firstly referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley (1956 (1) All ER page 341), wherein speaking for the majority, Lord Denning, inter alia, observed that no Court in the land would allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No Judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. ( 12 ) MR. No Judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. ( 12 ) MR. Dutta then referred to a Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Fedco (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. S. N. Bilgrami and Ors. (AIR 1960 SC page 415) wherein it was held that when a licence had been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, the basis for grant of the licence disappears and it would be absolutely unreasonable that such a licence should be allowed to continue. ( 13 ) MR. Dutta also referred to two other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1) Union of India v. Jain Sudh Vanaspati (1996 (86) ETT page 460, SC) and 2) Commissioner of Customs v. Candid Enterprise (2001 (130) ELT page 404, SC) wherein the aforesaid principle was reiterated though in a different contest. ( 14 ) MR. Dutta urged that the learned Tribunal had taken a very pedantic approach to the issue involved without considering the special facts relating to fraud which distinguished the instant case from the facts involved in the various cases cited on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Mr. Dutta submitted that Rule 101 of the 1995 Rules regarding the date to be specified in the order regarding cancellation of the Eligibility Certificate should have been considered by the learned Tribunal in the special facts of this case and it should have been held that in canceling the said Certificate from the date when it became effective, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had acted within the scope of the said Rule. ( 15 ) MR. Dutta submitted that in the facts of the case the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal was liable to be set aside. ( 16 ) OPPOSING the writ application on behalf of the respondent No. 2, Mr. R. N. Bajoria submitted that since the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was a creature of statute he had to act within the four-corners of the statute and could not exercise a jurisdiction which he did not possess. Referring to Rule 101 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, Mr. R. N. Bajoria submitted that since the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was a creature of statute he had to act within the four-corners of the statute and could not exercise a jurisdiction which he did not possess. Referring to Rule 101 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, Mr. Bajoria submitted that the said Rule contemplated not cancellation but cessation of validity of the Certificate of Eligibility in the event the authority concerned was satisfied that the dealer had contravened any of the provisions referred to in sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3) of Rule 98 of the said Rules. It was pointed out that the said Rule also provides that after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of hearing the said authority by an order in writing was empowered to declare such certificate to be invalid from such date as he might specify in the order. Mr. Bajoria submitted that the expression "such date as he may specify in the order" had fallen for consideration of different High Courts, including this Court, and it had uniformly been held that the said expression should be construed to mean either the date of the order canceling the Eligibility Certificate or a date subsequent to the date of the order and not a date prior to the date of the order. ( 17 ) MR. Bajoria urged that the grant of an Eligibility Certificate conferred benefits not only to the holder of the Certificate but also to those who dealt with the holder of the Certificate on the basis thereof. It was submitted that those dealers who had supplied raw materials to the respondent No. 2 would be entitled to claim exemption from payment of Sales Tax on the basis of such Eligibility Certificate and since the respondent No. 2 had not collected tax from persons to whom sales of manufactured goods had been effected, while the Certificate was valid, it would not be permissible for the petitioner to ask for payment of tax even for the period for which the respondent No. 2 had carried on business on the strength of the Eligibility Certificate issued in his favour. ( 18 ) MR. ( 18 ) MR. Bajoria submitted that the said question had come up for consideration before the Delhi High Court in the case of Chhabra Electric Store v. The Chief Commissioner Delhi (1972 (30) STC page 85) wherein it was held that the scheme of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Delhi, did not warrant the giving of retrospective effect to an order of cancellation of the Certificate of Registration of the dealer. It was held that the expression "from such date as may be specified in the order" in Rule 22 (1) (d) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, should be construed to mean either the date of the order cancelling the registration certificate or a date subsequent to the date of the order and not the date prior to the date of the order. While arriving at such decision, the Delhi High Court observed further that the apparent object of the aforesaid Rules appeared to be that other dealers dealing with the registered dealer may be informed of the cancellation of the registration certificate of the registered dealer so that, in case they chose to deal with him after such cancellation, they may realise the Sales Tax from such registered dealer. ( 19 ) MR. Bajoria also referred to a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) in the case of Kitchen Aid v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. , [1998 (110) STC page 109] wherein also the cancellation of an Eligibility Certificate with retrospective effect was held to be not permissible. ( 20 ) REFERENCE was also made to a decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of M. C. Agarwal v. Sales Tax Officer, Kesinga, (1987 (64) STC page 298), where the same principle was reiterated. ( 21 ) MR. Bajoria lastly referred to Bench decision of this Court in the case of Spantak polymers Pvt. ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Special Cell and Ors. (2001 (122) STC page 222) wherein it was held that the power of the statutory authorities under Rule 135 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, to discontinue the grant of remission of tax which had earlier been granted in favour of a dealer, would not entitle the authorities to withdrawn concession with retrospective effect. ( 22 ) MR. (2001 (122) STC page 222) wherein it was held that the power of the statutory authorities under Rule 135 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, to discontinue the grant of remission of tax which had earlier been granted in favour of a dealer, would not entitle the authorities to withdrawn concession with retrospective effect. ( 22 ) MR. Bajoria went on to add that under different statutes different powers had been given to the authorities for realising dues which had either been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded and the concerned authorities would be required to act within the periods of limitation as prescribed. ( 23 ) AS to the decisions cited by Mr. Dutta , Mr. Bajoria contended that the same could have no application to the facts of this case since the statutory authorities could not assume a jurisdiction they did not possess under the relevant provisions of the statue and the rules framed thereunder. ( 24 ) MR. Bajoria submitted that the observations made by Lord Denning in the Lazarus Estate Ltd. case (supra) were made in the facts of the case where an increase of rent was sought to be obtained by a fraudulent misrepresentation and in such context it was observed that the person gaining such advantage should not be allowed to retain such advantage which he had obtained by fraud. Mr. Bajoria contended that the said case did not involve exercise of powers under a statute. ( 25 ) MR. Bajoria pointed out that in the case of M/s. Fedco (P) Ltd. the facts entailed cancellation of a licence obtained by fraud and representation under the Imports (Control) Order, 1995, and the question which fell for consideration was whether the same amounted to infringement of a licencee's rights under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. In the said context it was held that since licence under the said Order is granted on a correct statement of relevant facts, the said basis disappears if the grant of such licence is induced by fraud and misrepresentation and no question of retrospective operation of such cancellation in involved. ( 26 ) MR. Bajoria sought to distinguish the other cases cited by Mr. ( 26 ) MR. Bajoria sought to distinguish the other cases cited by Mr. Dutta by contending that the same were decided within the ambit of the Customs Act, 1962, where there were specific provisions for taking consequential action, and the provisions of the Limitation Act, where there is specific provision for condonation of delay in the cases of fraud. ( 27 ) MR. Bajoria urged that having regard to the settled legal position, the Tribunal had quite correctly quashed the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, as confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by which the Eligibility Certificate issued in favour of the respondent No. 2 had been cancelled with retrospective effect. ( 28 ) ON consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties we are inclined to agree with the views expressed by the learned Tribunal. ( 29 ) RULE 101 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, whereunder the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes acted in cancelling the Eligibility Certificate issued to the respondent No. 2, reads as follows :-"101. Cessation of validity of certificate of eligibility.-where the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the dealer has contravened any of the provisions referred to in sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3) of rule 98, he shall, after giving such dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by an order in writing, declare such certificate invalid from such date as he may specify in the order. " ( 30 ) THE expression "from such date as he may specify in the order"used in the above Rule, which is relevant to the facts of this case, has been considered and interpreted in the several decisions cited on behalf of the respondent No. 2 both before the learned Tribunal and this Court. On the consideration that the transactions on the basis of the Eligibility Certificate and Registration Certificate involved third party interests, it was uniformly held by the different High Courts, including this Court, that an order to declare such Certificate as invalid could not be given retrospective effect. ( 31 ) WE respectfully agree with the views expressed in the said decisions cited on behalf of the respondent No. 2. ( 31 ) WE respectfully agree with the views expressed in the said decisions cited on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Registered dealers who had transacted business with the respondent No. 2 on the basis of the Eligibility Certificate issued in favour of the respondent No. 2 treating the same as valid would be adversely affected if the said Certificate is cancelled and/or revoked from the date it was issued as that would affect all such previous transactions. If any dealer dealt with the respondent No. 2 after the Eligibility Certificate issued in his favour was declared invalid, he would be entitled to realise sales tax from the said respondent who would no longer be in a position to claim exemption. ( 32 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we also agree with Mr. Bajoria that the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes could not travel beyond the scope of the powers contained in Rule 101 which empowered him to declare an Eligibility Certificate to be invalid from the date of the order or from a subsequent date, but not with retrospective effect. We are, therefore, unable to accept Mr. Dutta's submission that in the facts of the case the learned Tribunal adopted a pedantic approach and we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal. The writ application is accordingly dismissed, but this will not prevent the authorities from taking any further action in the matter in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. If an urgent xerox certified copy of this order is applied for, the same is to be supplied expeditiously, subject to compliance with all the required formalities. A. K. Basu, J.- I agree. Application dismissed