JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - At the instance of the applicant-assessee, the Tribunal (Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior) has stated the cases and referred the undernoted questions of law under section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act") arising out of the order dated June 29, 1987 and December 1, 1988 in Appeal Cases No. 416-PBR/85 and 60-III/86 on applications registered as Case No. 2-I/87 and 5-I/87 for our opinion : (1) Reference No. 2-I/87 : (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of set-off under section 8(1)(a) of the Act on the grounds and reasoning contained in his order ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in law in holding that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of set-off under section 8(1) because he was manufacturing tax-free goods particularly when on facts it is admitted that he was manufacturing the taxable goods in respect of which he was entitled to immunity from taxation because of the nature of the industry as a dealer ? (2) Reference No. 5-I/87 : (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of set-off under section 8(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act on the grounds and reasoning contained in his order ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in law in holding that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of set-off under section 8(1)(a) merely on the ground that he could have purchased tax-free goods as raw material in view of the notifications referred to in the order ? 2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. The applicant-assessee is a new industrial unit and manufacturers wooden furniture. It acquired eligibility certificate on June 27, 1983 effective from October 20, 1981 to October 1, 1983. 2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. The applicant-assessee is a new industrial unit and manufacturers wooden furniture. It acquired eligibility certificate on June 27, 1983 effective from October 20, 1981 to October 1, 1983. For the period from May 3, 1982 to November 15, 1982, the applicant was originally assessed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Indore vide order dated November 27, 1984 passed in Assessment Case No. 95 of 1982 (Provincial) whereby set-off of Rs. 7,803 on purchase price of raw materials purchased form registered dealers after paying tax at full rate was allowed. The assessment was, however, reopened under sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Act on the ground that the applicant's products were declared tax-free under Notification No. A3-41-81(35)-ST-V dated October 23, 1981 issued under section 12 of the Act and that the applicant's products having been declared tax-free under section 12 of the Act in terms of the provisions of section 8(1)(a) of the Act, the applicant was not entitled to claim set-off. By the order of re-assessment dated May 29, 1985 passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, under section 19(1) of the Act, the set-off, allowed previously was withdrawn (annexures "B" and "C"). For the period from November 16, 1982 to November 4, 1983 also the applicant's claim of set-off was similarly disallowed on the same grounds vide order dated September 30, 1985 passed in Assessment Case No. 327 of 1983 (Provincial) (annexure "D"). First appeals against the aforesaid orders were dismissed vide appellate order dated August 29, 1985 passed in Appeal No. 64 of 1985 (Provincial) (annexure "E") and vide appellate order dated January 13, 1986, passed in Appeal No. 123 of 1985 (Provincial) (annexure "F"), passed by the Additional Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore. The applicant then filed second appeals and contended that under the aforesaid notification dated October 23, 1981, the goods manufactured by them were not exempt from payment of tax and the exemption was to the "class of dealers" and as such the applicant was entitled to set-off. In Second Appeal No. 416-PBR/85, the Tribunal held that the applicant should have availed of the facility provided under section 6(2)(a) of the Act and as such the applicant was not eligible to claim set-off under section 8 of the Act. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed on June 29, 1987 (annexure "G"). In Second Appeal No. 416-PBR/85, the Tribunal held that the applicant should have availed of the facility provided under section 6(2)(a) of the Act and as such the applicant was not eligible to claim set-off under section 8 of the Act. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed on June 29, 1987 (annexure "G"). In Second Appeal No. 60-III/86, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the applicant that the said notification dated October 23, 1981 did not exempt the goods manufactured by the applicant and as such the applicant was entitled to set-off under section 8(1)(a) of the Act. However, the Tribunal maintained the order disallowing the set-off on the ground that the applicant could have purchased the raw materials and incidental goods without paying any tax under Notification No. A-3-41-81(25)-ST-V dated May 1, 1982. The appeal was, dismissed by order dated December 1, 1988 (annexure "H"). Aggrieved by the orders dated June 29, 1987 (annexure "G") and December, 1, 1988 (annexure "H") the applicant filed applications registered as 2-I/87 and 5-I/87 for reference of the questions. On these applications, the Tribunal stated the cases and referred the aforesaid questions of law for our opinion. 3. We have heard Shri P. M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant/assessee and Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the non-applicant/department in both these reference applications. 4. The scheme of section 8(1)(a) of the Act is that in case a dealer purchases goods in the shape of raw material at full rate of tax and pays the tax to the seller over and above the concessional rate, then he becomes entitled to get set-off equal to the difference between the full rate of tax and concessional rate of tax. The only condition that prohibits such a set-off is that such goods should not be declared tax-free under section 10 or 12 of the Act. In the instant case, it is clear that no exemption was granted in respect of the goods manufactured. Such goods are liable to tax under residuary entry of Part VI of the Second Schedule. The raw material purchased thus is in the nature of goods which are liable to tax and were not declared as tax-free goods. In the instant case, it is clear that no exemption was granted in respect of the goods manufactured. Such goods are liable to tax under residuary entry of Part VI of the Second Schedule. The raw material purchased thus is in the nature of goods which are liable to tax and were not declared as tax-free goods. Incontestable position is that it is the dealer who has been declared immune from taxation on the ground that he operated small-scale industry and deserved to be differently treated so far as tax structure was concerned because of the economic encouragement to such industries as a matter of policy of the Government. If the dealer had not operated small-scale industry as such, he would have been required to pay tax on the goods in question. 5. What puzzled us in two appeals as particularised above, is that the Tribunal took two conflicting stands. In Appeal No. 416-PBR/85, the Tribunal held that the applicant should have availed of the facility provided under section 6(2)(a) of the Act, whereas in another Appeal No. 60-III/86, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the applicant that the said notification dated October 23, 1981 did not exempt goods manufactured by the applicant but exempted "class of dealers" and that the applicant on that account was entitled to set-off under section 8(1)(a) of the Act. It is different matter that eventually relief was refused on the conjectural approach that applicant could have purchased the raw materials and incidental goods without paying any tax in terms of notification dated May 1, 1982. 6. It is brought to our notice that the Full Bench of the Tribunal in [1991] 7 TLD 13 (Mohini Plastic Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) held that when the assessee was a new industry, it was entitled to exemption from sales tax and such assessee was entitled to set-off on tax-paid purchases of raw materials as the goods were not exempt but the class of dealers was exempted. In this decision, it is held as under : "Held, it is admitted that sales tax was paid by the assessee on the raw material purchased in question, as he had not been granted the eligibility certificate during the period under consideration. The assessee had no choice but to purchase raw materials after paying the sales tax. In this decision, it is held as under : "Held, it is admitted that sales tax was paid by the assessee on the raw material purchased in question, as he had not been granted the eligibility certificate during the period under consideration. The assessee had no choice but to purchase raw materials after paying the sales tax. It is also clear that the 'goods' manufactured by him had not been declared tax-free. The conditions laid down in section 8(1)(a) having been fulfilled the assessee is clearly entitled to the grant of set-off." 7. The crucial answer is clearly contained in the second question proposed in regard to Reference Application No. 2-I/87 when it is expressed therein that "particularly when on facts it is admitted that he was manufacturing the taxable goods in respect of which he was entitled to immunity from taxation because of the nature of the industry as a dealer". 8. In [1987] 65 STC 1; AIR 1987 SC 590 (Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala) it is held that when Government grants package of concessions to the new small-scale industries in order to boost industrialisation in State, curtailment of concessions can be avoided through doctrine of estoppel. Such units are held entitled to get all concessions granted by first order. 9. Section 8(1)(a) provides for set-off or refund of tax in respect of tax-paid goods in certain circumstances. In the instant case there is no dispute that the applicant "purchased goods in the shape of raw materials at full rate of tax". In the face of this admitted position, the applicant was entitled to set-off in terms of section 8(1)(a) of the Act. Such a facility and concession cannot be denied on the supposed grounds that such a assessee could have purchased tax-free goods as raw materials in view of the later notification. The reasonings and the ground contained in the orders passed by the Tribunal do not appear to be correct and sound. 10. Now the Full Bench of the Tribunal itself has taken the view supporting the stand of the applicant. It is thus clear that the applicant has been erroneously denied the benefit of set-off under section 8(1)(a) of the Act. 11. 10. Now the Full Bench of the Tribunal itself has taken the view supporting the stand of the applicant. It is thus clear that the applicant has been erroneously denied the benefit of set-off under section 8(1)(a) of the Act. 11. Here are cases in which the assessee was allowed the benefit of set-off initially but was made to lose it on reopening of assessment under section 19(1) of the Act despite the fact that the assessee was found purchaser of raw material on payment of full tax to seller. This event should easily, without legal acrobatics bring benefit of set-off to the assessee. Taxation is not to be turned to become vexation. "Men will do the rational thing" said Lord Keynes, "but only after exploring all other alternatives". Exploration is thus a normal and natural feature. But on appreciation and analysis, we find that the Tribunal erred in confirming the order of withdrawal of the set-off despite favourable finding in at least one appeal, as noted above. The orders in the facts and circumstances of the case are thus liable to be labelled as unsound and unsustainable. 12. Nothing substantial is urged before us as to why the applicant should be denied the benefit of set-off when indisputably he purchased the raw material at full rate of tax. The applicant was demonstrably free to purchase the goods on full payment of tax and claim set-off under the aforesaid provisions of law. The only thing is that the conditions for such a set-off should be shown to exist. The conditions did exist but the Tribunal in one appeal took the stand, unsustainable in law, that the applicant could have purchased the raw materials or incidental goods without paying any tax. The fact remains that the tax was paid and as such benefit of set-off was available. 13. Accordingly we answer the questions as indicated below : (I) Reference No. 2-I/87 : (i) Answer to Question No. (i) is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. (ii) Answer to Question No. (ii) is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. (II) Reference No. 5-I/87 : (i) Answer to Question No. (i) is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. (ii) Answer to Question No. (ii) is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. (II) Reference No. 5-I/87 : (i) Answer to Question No. (i) is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. (ii) Answer to Question No. (ii) is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 14. These reference applications are thus disposed of with answers as indicated above but without any order as to costs. 15. A copy of the order be forwarded immediately to the Tribunal for further action as may be necessary. 16. Retain this order in Misc. Civil Case No. 181 of 1991 and place its copy in the connected Misc. civil case for ready reference. Reference answered in the negative.