Set-off under Rule 41D is limited to goods used in manufacture or packing; research and construction inputs were excluded.

Set-off under Rule 41D of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 is confined to specified goods used within the State in the manufacture of goods for sale or export, or in packing such goods. Cement used substantially for staff quarters and other construction, rather than directly in manufacture, did not satisfy the rule's conditions, so the set-off was disallowed. Scientific equipment and materials purchased for research and development also fell outside the rule's plain language, and a prior erroneous allowance in another matter could not justify similar relief. The disallowances of set-off were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether set-off under Rule 41D of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 was admissible on purchases of cement used in the foundation of plant and machinery; (ii) Whether set-off under Rule 41D was admissible on purchases of scientific equipment and materials acquired for research and development of existing and new products.

Issue (i): Whether set-off under Rule 41D of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 was admissible on purchases of cement used in the foundation of plant and machinery.

Analysis: Rule 41D permits set-off only in respect of purchases of specified goods used within the State in the manufacture of goods for sale or export, or in the packing of such manufactured goods. The cement in question was found to have been used substantially for construction of staff quarters and other works, and not as goods directly used in the manufacture of goods for sale. On that footing, the statutory conditions for set-off were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The claim for set-off on cement was not admissible and the disallowance was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether set-off under Rule 41D of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 was admissible on purchases of scientific equipment and materials acquired for research and development of existing and new products.

Analysis: The rule was held to be plain and unambiguous, and its benefit was confined to the purchases and use specified in the rule itself. Purchases made for research and development, though similar relief may be available under income-tax law, did not fall within the language of Rule 41D. The Tribunal's finding that the goods were not used in the manufacture of goods sold or exported was treated as a factual conclusion supporting denial of the benefit. The Court also rejected the plea based on allegedly inconsistent orders in other cases, holding that a wrong benefit in another matter cannot justify extension of an illegal or unsupported benefit on the basis of equality.

Conclusion: The claim for set-off on research and development purchases was not admissible and the disallowance was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the dealer and in favour of the Revenue, and the challenged disallowances of set-off were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Set-off under Rule 41D is confined to purchases of specified goods used within the State in the manufacture or packing of goods sold or exported, and a party cannot claim parity on the basis of another erroneous grant of relief.

---