JUDGMENT A. K. MATHUR, C.J. - This is a sales tax reference under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, at the instance of the assessee and the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for answer of this Court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that even though the assessee had purchased raw material and incidental goods from the registered dealers, he was not entitled to claim the set-off of tax under section 8(1)(a) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, because he had failed to prove that the selling registered dealers have paid the tax on these sales ?" 2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are thus : The assessee/applicant, a registered dealer under the Act, is a manufacturer of threshers and other iron and steel goods. For the period July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1982 he was assessed to tax under the Act by the Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam, Circle-I, by order dated June 29, 1985 passed in assessment case No. 183/82 (Provincial). During this period, the applicant purchased Rs. 90,002 worth of tax-paid raw material and incidental goods for which set-off was claimed. The assessing officer found that it was tax-paid. But the claim was not allowed by the assessing officer on the ground that purchase vouchers filed by the assessee do not show whether the selling dealer had paid tax on the said raw material and incidental goods, and the assessee failed to prove that the selling dealer had paid tax at full rate inspite of giving opportunity to prove. 3. Aggrieved against the order of the assessing officer, the assessee approached in appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ratlam, and it is submitted that he was entitled to set-off as per section 8(1)(a) of the Act and rule 20-C of the Rules framed under the Act. However, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the assessee again approached in second appeal before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue also dismissed the appeal and held that the assessee had failed to establish that the goods were tax-paid or not. Hence, the aforesaid question has been referred by the Board of Revenue for answer of this Court. 4. Therefore, the assessee again approached in second appeal before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue also dismissed the appeal and held that the assessee had failed to establish that the goods were tax-paid or not. Hence, the aforesaid question has been referred by the Board of Revenue for answer of this Court. 4. Section 8(1)(a) of the Act provides the set-off. It says that if any registered dealer has purchased tax-paid raw material or incidental goods in manufacture of or in the mining of any goods specified in Schedule II, he shall be entitled to set-off at an equal rate to the difference between the rate of tax-paid on raw material and incidental goods. Therefore, the set-off of difference of tax amount has been provided. The idea behind it that once the goods has suffered the tax then on principle of single point tax, the same goods should not suffer tax again; therefore, a set-off has been provided. The question in the present case is that whether the assessee has really discharged his burden that the goods has suffered the tax or not. As per the order of the assessing officer, it is established that the assessee had purchased the goods from the registered dealer. The registered dealer has been defined under section 2(m) and the tax-paid goods has been defined in section 2(rr), which reads as under : "Section 2(rr) : 'tax-paid goods' in relation to a dealer means any Goods specified in Parts II to VI of Schedule II which have been purchased by such dealer from a registered dealer inside the State of Madhya Pradesh within the meaning of section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (No. 74 of 1956) except the goods the sale whereof by such registered dealer is exempted in whole from the payment of tax subject to the condition that such exemption is available only to such registered dealer." Therefore, once it is established that the raw material or incidental goods have been purchased from a registered dealer that shows that the goods are tax-paid and if the goods has not been suffered the tax, it is open for the assessing authority to ask the registered dealer. Rule 20-C has been framed in order to give effect to section 8. Rule 20-C has been framed in order to give effect to section 8. Clause (iv) provides that the dealer claiming the set-off shall, at the time of assessment, produce copies of the relevant bills of cash memoranda obtained from the selling registered dealer in support of the fact that the raw material or incidental goods purchased by him have been taxed at full rate under sub-section (1) of section 6 at the hands of the selling registered dealer. Therefore,, by virtue of clause (iv) of rule 20-C, once the purchasing dealer produced the bill of registered dealer then it shall be presumed that goods have suffered the incidence of tax. If there is any doubt about it then instead of driving the assessee from pillar to post, he collects the evidence for this. The assessing authority in the event of any suspicion, should call upon that whether the goods have suffered the tax or not. Once the law defines the registered dealer and tax-paid goods. the assessee, i.e., purchasing dealer, produced the bill issued by the registered dealer then his burden is discharged and he cannot be held responsible or he cannot be forced to go around from pillar to post to collect the material in order to get the rebate. Rather, it should be on the assessing authority to obtain the necessary particulars if any suspicion arises. In Govindan & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1975] 35 STC 50 (Mad.) the question was that whether the goods suffered the tax or not in a single point tax and in that context, it was observed : To claim the benefit of tax on the ground that the sales effected by the assessees are second sales, the assessees need not show that their sellers have in fact paid tax. It is enough for them to show that the earlier sales are taxable sales and that the tax is really payable by their sellers." In State of Tamil Nadu v. Chamundeswari Enterprises [1983] 52 STC 124 (Mad.), similar view was taken by their Lordships and it was observed : "If a sale effected by an assessee is not a first sale, which is only taxable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, then under the provisions of the Act that sale cannot be brought within the net of taxation and it is for the revenue to search out the first seller and levy tax on the first sale. It is not for the assessee, who is the subsequent seller, to show that the first sale has been taxed. The onus on the subsequent seller is only to point out that there has been a first sale and the onus is not on him to show that the first sale has, in fact, suffered tax." In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kantilal Suresh Chand [1999] 112 STC 603; (1996) 16 Tax Law Decisions 85, a Division Bench of this Court has taken a similar view. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, we answer the aforesaid question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference answered in the negative.