TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht structural and holds a recognition certificate issued under section 16-C of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 is entitled to claim set-off on certain purchases said to have been made by them during the period in question. In the opinion of the taxing authorities and the appellate authority, petitioner is not so entitled and hence, a demand for Rs. 74,704 (annexure P7) is issued for payment. It is this demand which is based on the assessment orders and later upheld in appeal is under challenge. The State is noticed. Return is filed. Impugned demand is defended. Heard Shri S. C. Bagadia, learned Senior Counsel with Shri D. K. Chhabra and Shri L. R. Bhatnagar, learned Government Advocate for respondentState. Placing reliance on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for parties. It is true that a person who has already availed the benefit of section 16-C under the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 6 in respect of concessional rate of tax, then such benefit of section 8(1) of the Act is not available. As the assessee has already availed the concession, question of grant of set-off does not arise. Set-off is only available to those dealers who are entitled to claim it under section 8(1)(c) of the Act on the full tax paid on such goods. The first and foremost question is whether the assessee has availed the concessional rate of tax or not. If the assessee has already availed concession under section 6(2) of the Act, then the benefit under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in the light of observations made above. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. I am bound by the aforesaid view taken by division Bench on the legal question. In this view of the matter, the issue in question has got to be decided by the lower authorities keeping in view the law laid down supra in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. [2000] 118 STC 187 (MP); [1999] 23 TLD 50. In that case also their Lordships remanded the case for reexamination of the factual issues. I too have to pass the same order in this case because in this case also, the authorities had no occasion to examine the issue on the lines directed by the division Bench. Learned counsel for the State could not point out any auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
