This is a revision application by the assessee under Sec. 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 against the order dated 12-3-68 by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (appeals) Ajmer in respect of assessment for the period 17-10-63 to 3-11-64 in the case of M/s Mohtta Wool Trading Co., Kekri. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the departmental representative. The question pertains to the computation of purchase price for the purpose of levy of tax under Sec. 5-A of the R.S.T. Act on wool purchased by the assessee, in circumstances in which no tax was payable by the seller on the sale, and subsequently despatched to places outside the State (otherwise than as a direct result of sale in inter-State trade). The assessing authority computed the taxable purchase price, by deducting from the assessees sale price (on the sale of the goods outside the State) his profits, or adding to such price his losses. This was manifestly untenable, and the Dy. Commissioner rightly held this method of calculating purchase price to be unjustified. He, however, further held that the purchase price in this case would mean the price of the wool bales ready for sale in the hands of the assessee, the implication being that the expenses incurred by him after purchasing the wool in sorting, cleaning, baling and re-packing it, would form part of the purchase price He observed, however, that if the packing materials used by the assessee in packing the bales were already tax paid, they would not be included. He also hinted that any other expenses which may have formed part of the ultimate sale price, but which were not covered by the principle indicated by him (namely that the price of the wool bales ready in the assessees hands for sale should be treated as purchase price could also be excluded. He remanded the case with direction for re-assessment on the basis laid down by him. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that sec. 5*A of the R.S.T., Act refers to purchase price and not to cost price or any other such concept. There is no warrant in law, therefore, for working out what the Dy. Commissioner described as the price of the bales ready for sale. Purchase price, he said, has to be computed strictly in terms of the definition contained in sec. 2(p) of the Act. There is no warrant in law, therefore, for working out what the Dy. Commissioner described as the price of the bales ready for sale. Purchase price, he said, has to be computed strictly in terms of the definition contained in sec. 2(p) of the Act. This, he said, would mean that expenses such as those on sorting, cleaning, baling or packing incurred by the assessee after the purchase could not be included. The departmental representative tried to argue that according to sec. 2(p), sale price includes "any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery thereof" and as, according to the same section, purchase price is to be construed accordingly, purchase price also shall include such sums charged by the assessee. This argument, I am afraid, is wholly misconceived. Purchase price is nothing more or less than what is sale price in reference to the person from whom the goods are purchased. When A sells certain goods to B, B purchases them from him. As sale price is Bs purchase price. Sums of the kind referred to in the part of the definition of sale price quoted by the departmental representative (para 5 above) would refer to sums charged by A, (the seller) and only those charges or expenses which can go into his sale price according to the definition, would be incorporated in purchase price for B. Any expenses which B might incur on his own part after the purchase is over (that is, after property in the goods has passed to him and they have become his goods), whether before or at the time of sale by him, have no bearing on his purchase price and cannot be included in it. In the present case, therefore, expenses incurred by the assessee in sorting, clearing, baling and re-packing the wool after the purchase thereof by him cannot be included in purchase price. In the case of purchases from unregistered dealers, there may be difficulty in ascertaining the purchase price, but the assessing authority will have to do this on the basis of examination of the assessees accounts and such other enquiry as he may make. There is no escape from this. The Dy. In the case of purchases from unregistered dealers, there may be difficulty in ascertaining the purchase price, but the assessing authority will have to do this on the basis of examination of the assessees accounts and such other enquiry as he may make. There is no escape from this. The Dy. Commissioner has observed in his orders that payment of tax on purchase price is subject to the condition that the goods are sold in the same form in which they are purchased. The implication has not been clarified in the order. If the goods are deemed to have changed form, that is to say, a process of manufacture is considered to have been carried out before despatch out side the State, the position would be different, but that is neither the case of the assessee nor the finding of the assessing authority. No process of manufacture has been held to be involved. The revision application is accepted to the extent that the direction contained in the appellate order regarding computation of purchase price shall stand modified in the light of observations in paras 6 and 7 above.