Tax set-off claims must be supported by documentary proof; concurrent findings will not be disturbed without perversity.

Concurrent findings that the assessee failed to substantiate the claimed sales tax set off with purchase invoices or other supporting documents were not shown to be perverse, so the High Court declined to interfere in revision. The Tribunal's reliance on industrial policy precedent was held inapplicable because the dispute concerned operation of the set off provisions in the sales tax rate chart, not any separate exemption or deferment benefit. The denial of set off for consumables was therefore upheld against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the claimed set off under Note-1 and Note-2 of List-C in relation to Entry No. 76, and whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the denial of set off for consumables was justified.

Analysis: The authorities below found that the assessee had not produced purchase invoices or other supporting documents to disprove the departmental case against the claimed set off. The Tribunal also found that the cited precedent on benefits under an industrial policy had no application, since the dispute turned on the operation of the set off provisions under the sales tax rate chart and not on any independent exemption or deferment benefit. The High Court found no perversity or error in those concurrent factual findings and declined to interfere.

Conclusion: The denial of the claimed set off was upheld and the question was answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed because the impugned orders rested on concurrent factual findings that were not shown to be perverse or legally unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings that a claimed tax set off is unsupported by necessary documentary evidence, and are not shown to be perverse, will ordinarily not be disturbed in revision.

---