9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration in this case is, whether the petitioner is entitled to claim set-off on the taxpaid goods purchased by the petitioner during the period in question as contemplated in section 8(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, when petitioner was holding a recognition certificate under section 16-C of the Act? Facts of the case are very short and involve no dispute on them. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of aluminium utensils/circles, etc. They are the registered dealer as defined under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and on its repeal under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994. They have been granted recognition certificate as per section 16-C of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion (April 1, 1991 to March 31, 1992) and hence, petitioner was eligible to claim set-off during that period. In other words, the submission was that if at the time of claiming set-off, the eligibility certificate was not issued by the department (see the dates) then the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of set-off in respect of the tax-paid goods purchased by them. In reply, learned counsel for the State while defending the impugned orders contended that since the certificate was admittedly in force for the period in question though issued at a later date, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefit of set-off. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, I find no merit in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner claimed set-off under section 8(1) in respect of tax-paid goods, the recognition certificate was holding the field and hence that disentitled the petitioner to enjoy the benefit of set-off. It is not the case of petitioner that notwithstanding the recognition certificate issued in favour of the petitioner under section 16-C of the Act for the period in question or independent of the certificate, the petitioner was eligible to claim set-off. In other words, the petitioner did not come to the court with this plea that irrespective of the certificate whether granted earlier or later, the petitioner had the right to claim set-off. I, therefore, need not examine this plea. Accordingly and in view of aforesaid discussion, it is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
