Allowing the petition the Court held that ; if the Department sought to cancel the certificate on the ground that a particular aspect had not been considered, before taking a decision to cancel the certificate already granted, it must have satisfied the requirement of natural justice by giving a copy of the same to the assessee and heard the assessee on it before taking a decision to cancel the certificate. The notices which sought to review the certificate did not indicate that the review was being done as the certificate dated May 4, 2017 was granted without considering the applicability of rule 28AA in the context of the assessee’s facts. Therefore, there was no occasion for the assessee to seek a copy of the reasons recorded while issuing the certificate. Moreover, it was found on facts that there was no change in the facts that existed on May 4, 2017 and those that existed when the order dated October 23, 2017 was passed. Thus, there was a flaw in the decision-making process which vitiated the order dated October 23, 2017. The grant or refusal to grant the certificate under S. 197 had to be determined by the parameters laid down therein and rule 28AA and it could not be gone beyond the provisions to decide an application. The order dated October 23, 2017 did not indicate, what the profits were likely to be in the near future, which the Department might not be able to recover as it would be more than the carried forward losses. However, such a departure from the earlier view had to be made on valid and cogent reasons. Therefore, on the facts, the basis of the order, that the financial condition of the assessee was that any further tax payable might not be recoverable, was not sustainable and rendered the order bad. ( AY. 2018-19)