JUDGMENT : Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. These revisions have been filed by the applicant-assessee against the common order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Meerut, dated 7.1.2009, passed in second appeal nos. 273/2003 for A.Y. 1999-2000 (U.P.) and 274/2003 for A.Y. 1999-2000 (Central). By that order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeals filed by the revenue and held the assesssee not entitled to benefit of set off under Section 4-BB of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. During assessment years in question, the assessee had manufactured tubular poles claiming benefit of notification no. 2339 dated 22.10.1996, read with notification no. 1223 dated 22.5.1998. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed set off of tax paid on purchase of raw materials used in the manufacture of tubular poles. The assessing officer rejected the claim on the reasoning that the assessee had not raised any such claim in its return and, therefore, it was not permissible to grant the same at the stage of assessment. The first appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), by his order dated 19.2.2003, on the reasoning that under the aforesaid notifications, there was no restraint place in law that such set off may be claimed at the stage of filing of return and not later. Insofar as the assessee had not violated the law in charging the tax on the sale of tubular poles, it was held entitled to the set off, as claimed. Upon revenue's appeal, the Tribunal has allowed the same on the reasoning that the scheme of set off cannot be permitted to be used as a handle to retain an amount by the selling dealer, for his personal gain. Insofar as the assessee had made excess realization of 2%, the State was held entitled to retain the same as trustee. 3. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Pooja Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant-assesee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue. 4. Insofar as the assessee had made excess realization of 2%, the State was held entitled to retain the same as trustee. 3. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Pooja Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant-assesee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue. 4. The revisions have been pressed on the following questions of law: "(i) Whether the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct to hold that the assessing authority was justified in forfeiting the amount of the tax under Section 29-A(2) of the Act despite the applicant was entitled to adjustment of tax paid on the purchase of raw material u/s 4-BB of the Act. (ii) Whether the Tribunal having not reversed the finding of the appellate authority that the provisions of Section 8-A(2)(b) of the Act having not violated, the amount refund can not be forfeited under Section 29-A(2) of the Act. (iii) Whether the Tribunal having not considered that with raw material purchased after paying the purchase tax was consumed in the manufacture of tubular poles that is notified goods being Iron & Steel as per notification No. 1223 dated 22.05.1998, the assessing was right in denying the set off under Section 4-BB of the Act since it was not claimed in the return but was claimed at the time of the assessment." 5. Learned Senior Counsel would submit, the reasoning of the assessing authority was completely erroneous, inasmuch as, there is no stipulation either under the Act, or under the relevant notifications, whereby the claim for set off must necessarily be made at the stage of filing the return. On the other hand, the first appellate authority had correctly allowed the same as the assessee had not flouted, either the provisions of the Act, or the scheme in either paying 2% tax on purchase of raw materials, or in charging 4% tax on the sale of tubular poles. According to him, since the law stipulated that the amount of tax paid on raw material be set off against the tax paid on sale of tubular poles, the set off ought to have been granted in the course of assessment proceedings. 6. According to him, since the law stipulated that the amount of tax paid on raw material be set off against the tax paid on sale of tubular poles, the set off ought to have been granted in the course of assessment proceedings. 6. Further, it has been submitted, the Tribunal has completely misdirected itself in reaching the conclusion that, in the garb of claiming set off, the assessee could not be allowed to retain any tax charged for its personal gain. In fact, the Tribunal has not given any reason to reverse the finding recorded by the first appellate authority. 7. Reliance has been placed on the division bench decisions of this Court in M/s Sohan Lal Babu Ram Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow & Ors., 1981 STD 121; M/s Indian Oil Corporation, Agra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 1981 UPTC 1248 and; decision of a learned single judge of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs. M/s G.R. Tibrewal and Co., Kanpur, 1982 UPTC 241, to submit that mere admission of tax liability may not disentitle the assessee from raising a claim of set off. 8. Opposing the revision, learned Standing Counsel would submit, at the relevant time, the assessee did not claim set off and instead he paid full tax on the purchase of raw materials and charged full tax on sale of tubular poles. Having done that, the assessee clearly opted out of the set off scheme, which in any case, did not have mandatory force. Alternatively, it has been submitted that the dispute being canvassed by the assessee is purely academic, inasmuch as, there is no provision for the refund of the tax paid on purchase of raw materials. Having charged full tax on the sale of tubular poles, the assessee cannot claim any refund or adjustment of that amount against any other liability that may be standing against it. 9. Having charged full tax on the sale of tubular poles, the assessee cannot claim any refund or adjustment of that amount against any other liability that may be standing against it. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, though it is true that the claim for set off may not have been rejected only because the same had not been raised in the return filed by the assessee and theoretically, it was permissible for the assessee to raise that claim at the stage of assessment proceedings, however, for such claim to arise and be allowed, the assessee must be shown to have fulfilled the conditions for the set off being claimed. 10. The set off of tax paid on raw material and packing material used in the manufacture of notified goods is provided under Section 4-BB of the Act. It reads as below: "4-BB. Set off of tax paid on raw material and packing material in certain cases. Where tax has been paid on the purchase or sale of raw material or packing material inside the State and such raw material or packing material has been used in manufacture or packing of such goods as are notified by the State Government in this behalf and such goods are sold in the State or in the course of inter State trade or commerce, the amount of tax paid on the purchase or sale or the raw material or packing material shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified in the said notification, be deducted from the tax payable on the sale of such goods- (a) inside the State, to the extent the tax has been paid on the purchase or sale of raw material or packing material from which the goods sold inside the State were manufactured or packed; (b) in the course of inter State trade or commerce, to the extent the tax has been paid on the purchase or sale of raw material or packing material, from which the goods sold in the course of inter State trade or commerce were manufactured or packed: Provided that the amount of tax to be deducted under clause (a) or clause (b) shall not exceed the amount of tax payable separately under this Act or the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956." 11. Thus, in the first place, the set off is available with respect to the tax paid on purchase of raw materials used in the manufacture of notified goods. Second, such set off is to be availed by making deduction of that amount from the tax payable on the sale of notified goods. The tax on sale of tubular poles would have become payable at the time of sale of those goods by the assessee and, in any case, at the stage of filing of the monthly/quarterly return, as the case may have been. Therefore, to take the benefit of Section 4-BB of the Act, plainly, the assessee was required to make that deduction, at that stage, and not later. Then, looking at the notification no. 2339 dated 22.10.1996, read with notification no. 1223 dated 22.5.1998, under the conditions for grant of benefit of set off, it was clearly stipulated by way of condition no. 3 that it was permissible to the manufacture (of notified goods) to claim such deduction, by way of an option to the payment of full tax on sale of such goods. It was not compulsary for that manufacturer to necessarily avail set off. 12. Thus, a co-joint reading of the provisions of Section 4-BB of the Act and the notifications leaves no doubt, for the set off to be claimed by the assesee, the deduction of tax paid or purchase of raw material had to be made at it's end at the time of making sale of notified goods i.e. tubular poles. Once the assessee failed to make such deductions, at that stage, no subsequent claim in that regard may have been raised, either at the stage of filing annual return or during the course of the assessment proceedings. Only other situation in which such a claim may have then arisen, could have been if the assessee had always claimed that it had not charged tax on the sale of tubular poles but paid that amount from its own pocket. Clearly, that case does not exist in the present case. 13. Only other situation in which such a claim may have then arisen, could have been if the assessee had always claimed that it had not charged tax on the sale of tubular poles but paid that amount from its own pocket. Clearly, that case does not exist in the present case. 13. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Tribunal apart, it does not appear possible to contemplate a situation where a claim of set off may have been raised by the assessee after it had failed to make a deduction of tax payable on the sale of tubular poles and it had charged full tax @ 4% on sale of tubular poles. 14. In view of the above, the question of law no. 1 is answered thus - notwithstanding full compliance made by the assessee, in payment of tax on purchase of raw material and charge of tax on sale of tubular pipes, it lost the right to claim the set off under Section 4-BB of the Act upon opting to charge full tax on sale of tubular pipes, instead of deducting the tax paid on purchase of raw material from the tax payable on the sale of tubular pipes. The subsequent events of the timing of the claim raised during assessment proceedings remained inconsequential as the scheme of set off was optional and the assessee must be held to have necessarily opted out of it by choosing to charge full tax on sale of tubular pipes. 15. Both the revisions lack merit and are accordingly dismissed, for reasons different from those recorded by the Tribunal.