Refund entitlement and adjustment claims require clear findings before interest or denial of set-off under sales tax law.

Excess tax claimed as refundable could not be rejected without verifying the underlying assessment orders and refund details, and the Tribunal was required to give a clear finding on whether the amounts had in fact become refundable before deciding any adjustment claim under section 29 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The record showed that the assessee had already supplied particulars of the assessment years, orders and amounts, and had undertaken to produce the relevant orders. The Tribunal's refusal for want of documentary proof was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh findings on refund entitlement and consequential adjustment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's claim that excess tax had become refundable could be adjusted before charging interest, and whether the Tribunal was required to record a clear finding on the refund claim and the consequential claim for adjustment under section 29 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The revision court found that the assessee had furnished details before the assessing authority showing the assessment years, orders, and amounts said to have become refundable. The Tribunal had rejected the plea mainly for want of documentary proof, but the materials already placed required verification. Since the assessee undertook to produce the relevant assessment orders, the Tribunal ought to have determined whether the stated amounts had in fact become refundable and, if so, whether adjustment under section 29 could be denied.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh finding on the refund claim and the claim for adjustment.

---