JUDGMENT A. K. MATHUR, AG. C.J. - Both the references involve similar questions of law and therefore, they are disposed of by the common order. For the convenient disposal of the both references the facts of M.C.C. No. 462 of 1986 is taken up for consideration. 2. This is the reference under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act") made by the Board of Revenue at the instance of the assessee. Following questions of law have been referred by the Board for answer by this Court : "(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right is holding that while the claim for set-off has to be made as laid down under rule 20-C(1)(c), yet the set-off will be granted only when the condition laid down under rule 20-C(1)(a)(iii) of the rules are fulfilled ? (2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that empty gunny bags sold by the company during the period January 1, 1978 to December 31, 1978, were exigible to sales tax under the Act ?" In order to answer both these questions, brief facts of the case are that M/s. Maihar Cement, Sarianagar, Maihar District, Satna, is producer and seller of cement. They were assessed to sales tax for the period January 1, 1978 to December 31, 1978 and January 1, 1979 to December 31, 1979, by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Satna, by his orders dated October 12, 1981 and September 29, 1982. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Satna, who vide his order dated September 30, 1993, partly accepted the appeal in the case for the assessment year 1978 and remanded the case to the assessing officer. In the case for the assessment year January 1, 1979 to December 31, 1979, the appeal was fully accepted and the case was remanded to the assessing officer. Against these orders, second appeals were filed before the Tribunal which by orders dated August 30, 1984 and September 5, 1984, rejected these appeals. The Board of Revenue did not accept that empty gunny bags sold by the company during the period under review were waste material and, therefore, could not be exigible to sales tax so far as assessment year 1988 is concerned. The Board of Revenue did not accept that empty gunny bags sold by the company during the period under review were waste material and, therefore, could not be exigible to sales tax so far as assessment year 1988 is concerned. He also did not accept the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that the set-off under section 8(1)(a) of the Act read with rule 20-C of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") should be allowed in the year of purchase of material and they should not be dependent upon the use or sale in that year. 3. In order to answer the first question referred to by the Tribunal, it may be relevant to refer to rule 20-C of the Rules which is relevant for answering the controversy in the present case. So far as the set-off under section 8 of the Act is concerned, the assessee is entitled thereto provided it satisfied the conditions laid down in rule 20-C(1)(a) which says that set-off under clause (a) of section 8 of the At shall be granted on certain restrictions and conditions, namely, (i) the claimant should be a dealer registered under the Act, (ii) tax-paid material or the tax-paid incidental goods purchased by a registered dealer should have been specified as such in his certificate of registration, (iii) the goods manufactured by using the tax-paid raw material or the tax-paid incidental goods should have been sold by the registered dealer in the State of Madhya Pradesh or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India. If these conditions are satisfied, then under rule 20-C(1)(c) of the Rules the set-off can be claimed by registered dealer in his return in form VIII and such claim shall be in respect of the purchase price of raw material or incidental goods which were purchased by him from another registered dealer during the period to which such return relates, irrespective of whether such goods have or have not been used for the manufacture of goods or whether or not the manufactured goods have been sold during such period. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that their claim is being denied for the reason that they have not consumed that goods or sold that goods in the same quarter. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that their claim is being denied for the reason that they have not consumed that goods or sold that goods in the same quarter. Therefore, it is contended that the Board of Revenue has not correctly interpreted clause (c) of rule 20-C(1) of the Rules. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel and also considered the contention raised by the Revenue. A close and harmonious reading of rule 20-C(1)(a)(iii) with rule 20-C(1)(c) makes it clear that the assessee can claim set-off only if the goods has been purchased from the registered dealer and it finds mention in the registration certificate and that goods has been sold in the State of Madhya Pradesh or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India, and then alone, he is entitled to the set-off. It is quite possible that the goods which have been purchased by satisfying the aforementioned conditions may not have been sold in the same quarter. It may have been sold subsequently. But if at the time of assessing the tax liability of the assessee during the assessment year, the assessee satisfies all the conditions, then the claim of set-off can be considered. In case the assessee fails to satisfy the authorities during the assessment year, then he will not be entitled to have the benefit of set-off. 5. Shri S. L. Nema, learned counsel for the assessee, submits that it is not possible to consume all the goods in the same quarter or may be sold in the same quarter, but it is possible that it can be sold or consumed in the next quarter but within the assessment year. That submission appears to be justified. In fact rule 20-C(1)(a)(iii) and rule 20-C(1)(c) of the Rules, if read together, would mean that set-off has to be given provided all the conditions specified are satisfied and it may not be confined to that quarter alone but it can be within the assessment year, and if the assessing officer is satisfied that during the assessment year all the conditions are fulfilled, then alone the assessee will be entitled to the set-off otherwise not. 6. 6. In the present case, it appears from the order of the first appellate court that the assessee has not satisfied the assessing authority whether the goods are duly entered in the registration certificate or not and whether these goods were consumed by the assessee in that assessment year or not. Therefore, he remanded the case before the assessing authority. We do not know, by this time, the liability would have been decided by the assessing authority. However, we answer the first question that if the assessee satisfies all the conditions mentioned in rule 20-C(1)(a)(iii) and 20-C(1)(c) of the Rules within that assessment year, then the assessee will be entitled to the set-off. 7. So far as the second question regarding the gunny bags is concerned, it is answered against the assessee in view of the amended definition of "business" in section 2(bb) of the Act which says that even waste material is entitled to be exigible. Therefore, it is answered against the assessee. 8. M.C.C. No. 457 of 1986 is also answered accordingly in light of the above observations. Reference answered accordingly.