Rajagopalan, J.- Two items were in dispute: (1) a turnover of Rs.1,70,105-6-0 and (2) a turnover of Rs.21,849-12-11. The first represented the sale value of the packing materials in which the assessee sold tobacco. The tobacco and the packing materials were consigned to purchasers outside the State of Madras. The assessee claimed that the sale value of the packing materials was exempt from taxation (1) under section 4; (2) under rule 5(1)(g)(ii) and (3) under Article 286(1)(a) with the Explanation thereto of the Constitution. The second item in dispute the turnover of Rs.21,849-12-11, represented the sale proceeds of tobacco seeds. The assessee claimed that these sales were exempted from liability to sales tax under section 4 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The contentions were all negatived by the Tribunal. Hence this petition. The second item in dispute is easier disposed of. What section 4 exempted from the operation of the Madras General Sales Tax Act in the assessment year in question was the sale of tobacco in any form, whether manufactured or not. The tribunal held that tobacco seeds which was a commodity distinct from tobacco did not come within the scope of section 4. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. The sum of Rs.1,70,105-6-0 represented the estimated value of the packing materials in which tobacco was consigned to the purchasers outside the State of Madras. The claim based upon section 4 of the Act is easiest dismissed. Packing materials cannot obviously come within the scope of tobacco in any form within the meaning of section 4 of the Act. Rule 5(1)(g)(ii) of the Madras General Sales Tax Turnover and Assessment Rules exempted from liability to tax all amounts falling under the head charges for packing and delivery and other such like services when specified and charged for by the dealer separately without including them in the price of goods sold. The Tribunal rightly pointed out that the assessee had charged an inclusive price for both the tobacco and the packing materials when he sold the goods to the purchasers. The requirements of the rule were not satisfied. The value of the packing materials themselves had to be estimated. The Tribunal rightly negatived the claim of the assessee, to the benefit of rule (5)(g)(ii) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules. The requirements of the rule were not satisfied. The value of the packing materials themselves had to be estimated. The Tribunal rightly negatived the claim of the assessee, to the benefit of rule (5)(g)(ii) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules. The third contention of the assessee was based on Article 286(1)(a) and the Explanation thereto of the Constitution. We dealt with that question in T.R.C. Nos.117 and 133 of 19531 in which we have just delivered judgment. In this case also the assessee failed to prove as a fact, that the packing materials were delivered outside the State of Madras for the purposes of consumption in the State of delivery. No doubt tobacco could not be consigned except when properly packed, and the export of tobacco outside the State of Madras necessarily involved the export of packing materials also. Whether the tobacco consigned to buyers outside the State of Madras was delivered in the States outside Madras for purposes of consumption there or not, it is a little difficult to understand how the packing materials could come within the scope of delivery outside the State of Madras for the purposes of consumption in the State of delivery. In any case, since the question, whether the delivery of the packing materials was a direct result of the sale effected by the assessee for purposes of consumption in the State of delivery, is a question of fact, it is not open to us to allow the assessee to ask us now to determine that question of fact. In view of the special nature of the articles the sale of which was included in the turnover in dispute, we do not feel called upon to order a further investigation into the question of fact involved in the claim of the assessee even apart from the other aspects of the scope of Article 286(1)(a) and the Explanation thereto which we considered in T.R.C.s Nos.117 and 133 of 1953.1 The sales in question came directly within the purview of Article 286 (2) of the Constitution and therefore the Proviso to that clause. The legality of the tax levied on these sales was rightly sustained under the President’s Order, G.O. No.7 of 1950, issued in exercise of the powers vested in him by the Proviso to Article 286 (2) of the Constitution. This petition fails and is dismissed with costs Rs.250. K.C. ------- Petition dismissed.