JUDGMENT A. K. MATHUR, AG. C.J. - This is a reference under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 made by the Board of Revenue at the instance of the assessee. The Board of Revenue has framed the following question for answer by this Court : "Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of set-off under the provisions of the Entry Tax Act, 1976 (No. 2 of 1976) as amended, on oil seeds and pulses purchased after payment of entry tax and were subsequently sold outside the State or/and in the course of inter-State trade or commerce ?" 2. Brief facts giving rise to this reference are that the applicant/assessee is a dealer in oil seeds, pulses, grains, etc. During the assessment year November 1, 1978 to October 20, 1979, he entered into whole purchases worth Rs. 5,49,863.82 and separated pulses worth Rs. 36,50,316.38. All these items were purchased by the applicant/assessee from commission agents who had paid the entry tax. He, therefore, claimed set-off of Rs. 5,490.64, Rs. 780.45 and Rs. 18,251.58 respectively. In all, Rs. 54,522.67 under section 3(1), proviso (vii) of the Entry Tax Act. This claim was disallowed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax by his order dated September 5, 1980 and by the first appellate court by order dated January 21, 1981. The applicant/assessee approached the Board of Revenue in second appeal and the Board of Revenue also negatived his contention. Hence, the applicant/assessee moved an application before the Board of Revenue to refer the matter before this Court. In these circumstances, the learned Board of Revenue has referred the abovementioned question for answer by this Court. 3. In order to answer the question, it would be relevant to refer to section 3(1), provisos (v), (vi) and (vii) which read thus : "Section 3. Incidence of taxation. In these circumstances, the learned Board of Revenue has referred the abovementioned question for answer by this Court. 3. In order to answer the question, it would be relevant to refer to section 3(1), provisos (v), (vi) and (vii) which read thus : "Section 3. Incidence of taxation. - (1) There shall be levied an entry tax - (a) on the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule II, into each local area for consumption, use or sale therein; and (b) on the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in schedule III, into each local area for consumption or use of such goods as raw material or incidental goods or as packing material or in the execution of works contracts but not for sale therein, - and such tax shall be paid by every dealer liable to tax under the Sales Tax Act who has effected entry of such goods : Provided that no tax under this sub-section shall be levied : (i) to (iv).............. (v) in respect of goods specified in Schedule II which, after entry into a local area, are sold outside the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India. (vi) in respect of goods specified in Schedule III imported from outside the State for consumption or use as raw material or incidental goods or as packing materials or in the execution of works contract but which have been disposed of in any other manner. (vii) in respect of goods exempted from entry tax under section 10, and if tax on the entry of any goods specified in Schedule II or Schedule III effected during any period has been paid by a dealer and subsequent to such entry the goods are disposed of in the manner described in clause (v) or clause (vi) of this proviso the dealer shall be entitled to a set-off of the tax already paid by him in respect of such goods and such set-off shall be adjusted towards the tax payable by him for the period during which the goods were so disposed of or for any subsequent period in such manner as may be prescribed. Provided further........." The admitted facts are that the commission agents purchased the pulses and grains and brought in the local area after paying the entry tax and they sold this to the applicant/assessee and the applicant/assessee is said to have transferred the goods in course of inter-State trade and therefore, he claimed the set-off of the amount of entry tax and that was negatived by the Board of Revenue on the ground that as per the proviso 3(1)(vii), since the assessee/applicant has not paid the entry tax, he is not entitled to the benefit of set-off. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are the opinion that the interpretation of proviso (vii) of section 3(1) of the Entry Tax Act, put by the Board of Revenue, is not correct. It is admitted fact that goods has suffered the entry tax when it was sold in the course of inter-State trade by the assessee. According to proviso (vii), if tax on the entry of any goods specified in Schedule II and Schedule III effected during any period has been paid by a dealer and subsequently such goods are disposed of in any manner described in clause (v) or clause (vi) of this proviso, the dealer shall be entitled to set-off of the tax already paid by him. Clause (v) says that in respect of goods specified in Schedule II which after entry into a local area are sold outside the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India, no tax under section 3(1) shall be levied. Therefore, the goods which has already suffered the entry tax and if it is sold outside the State in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export, etc., outside the territory of India, then the dealer shall be entitled to the set-off under the proviso (vi). In the present case, the commission agents brought the goods into the local area after paying the entry tax and then they sold the goods to the applicant/assessee and the applicant/assessee sold his goods in the course of inter-State trade. In the present case, the commission agents brought the goods into the local area after paying the entry tax and then they sold the goods to the applicant/assessee and the applicant/assessee sold his goods in the course of inter-State trade. Though it is correct that the assessee/applicant himself has not paid the entry tax on the goods purchased from commission agents but he has purchased the goods on which entry tax was duly paid and if he sold this goods in the course of inter-State trade, then he will be entitled to the benefit of set-off also. It makes little difference if the local dealer who had brought the goods has sold the goods outside the State in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export outside the territory of India or if a third person, who has purchased this goods which has already suffered entry tax, sells out this goods outside the State, then he is also entitled to the same benefit as the original dealer will be if he has sold out the goods in the course of inter-State trade or otherwise. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue, while supporting the view taken by the Board of Revenue, contended that under clause (vii) of section 3(1) it has been specifically mentioned that the dealer shall be entitled to get set-off of entry tax already "paid by him". It should mean to confine to the original dealer only and not the second dealer. The contention of the learned counsel is not correct. The paramount consideration is that the goods which has already suffered the entry tax should not be further subjected to tax as that will be against the scheme of the Act. In fact the set-off is part of the one point entry tax only and to read this provision to mean that the original dealer who has brought the goods in the local area will only be entitled to the set-off and not the other dealer who has purchased the same goods which has already suffered entry tax, will militate against the intention of the Act. It would be discriminatory also because when the goods has already suffered the entry tax and the Legislature has given specific set-off of levy of tax on entry of goods into a local area, that simply because the goods has changed the hands to another dealer, then that dealer is denied the benefit of set-off. Denial of such a benefit will operate as discriminatory and will be against the intended purpose of the Act. Therefore the interpretation put by the Board of Revenue that the original dealer who brings the goods and pays the entry tax and further sells that goods outside the State or in the course of inter-State trade or export outside India will be entitled to set-off of entry tax and not the other person who purchases this entry tax paid goods is not correct. If the goods has already suffered entry tax by one dealer and that dealer sells it locally to another dealer and that another dealer sells that goods outside the State or in the course of inter-State trade or exports it as provided under the proviso (v) of section 3(1), then he will also be entitled to set-off provided under the proviso (vii). Therefore, we hold that the applicant/assessee is entitled to the set-off of entry tax paid. 6. The next question is as to whether the assessee has satisfied the authorities that the goods has suffered the entry tax or not at the hands of the commission agents. According to the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue, it appears that the applicant/assessee has not produced necessary challan and details before the authorities to the effect that the goods in question has already suffered entry tax or not. Therefore, we direct that it is open for the applicant/assessee to produce the original papers to satisfy the assessing authorities as to whether the goods has really suffered entry tax and if the assessee satisfies the authorities, then he will be entitled to the benefit of proviso (vii) of section 3(1) of the Act. The reference is answered accordingly in favour of the assessee. Reference answered in the negative.