Concurrent factual findings and binding precedent sustained resale relief and allowed set-off on steam under Rule 42.

Concurrent factual findings based on the assignment deed, purchase particulars and invoices showed that the assets were bought from a registered dealer and later transferred to another registered dealer, so no tax liability arose on the resale; the court treated this as a factual determination and found no substantial question of law. The claim for set-off on steam under Rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 was allowed because the binding precedent in Ami Pigments governed the issue, and steam used in manufacture was treated as processing material eligible for credit. The challenge to the Tribunal's order therefore failed and the assessee's relief was sustained on both issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessee was liable to pay tax on resale of assets purchased from a registered dealer when the record contained assignment deed and invoices showing the transactions; (ii) whether the claim of set-off on steam was allowable under Rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 in light of the binding precedent.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was liable to pay tax on resale of assets purchased from a registered dealer when the record contained assignment deed and invoices showing the transactions.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded that the deed of assignment, purchase particulars, and invoices were already on record, and that the assets had been purchased from a registered dealer and later transferred to another registered dealer. On those facts, the Tribunal rejected the first appellate authority's finding that no details were produced. The High Court accepted that these findings were factual in nature and did not raise a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The finding that no tax liability arose on the resale of the assets was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim of set-off on steam was allowable under Rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 in light of the binding precedent.

Analysis: The authorities had disallowed the set-off by relying on an earlier decision, but that decision had already been reversed by the High Court in Ami Pigments. The High Court noted that the binding precedent governed the issue and that steam used in manufacture constituted processing material eligible for set-off under Rule 42.

Conclusion: The set-off on steam was held to be allowable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's order failed, and the assessee's relief was sustained on both factual liability and set-off issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent factual findings supported by documentary material do not give rise to a substantial question of law, and a claim for set-off must follow the binding precedent applicable to the statutory rule governing the credit.

---