Judgment :- 1. The short question arising in this petition is whether the petitioner, a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is liable to pay sales tax on the amount of packing charges separately shown in the bills for the sale of cement by him. His contention that he is entitled to exemption under R.9(f)(ii) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which provides that in determining the taxable turnover all amounts falling under the head "charges for packing and delivery;" when specified and charged for by the dealer separately, without including them in the price of goods sold should be included has been negatived. The commodity sold is cement. Ext. P1, a sample bill states the price for the cement. Packing charges (packing in gunny bags) are stated separately. It is admitted that all the transactions for the two years 1968-69 (the period from 1-11-68 to 30-3-69) and 1969-70, are covered by similar bills. 2. The Sales Tax Officer negatived the claim for exemption by the dealer on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1970) (26 STC. 24e) which was at that time only short-noted in 24 STC. 6. We do not think this decision has any application. 3. Various contentions have been raised in this original petition including the vires of sub-s. (5) of S.5 of the Act. We do not think that we should deal with in this case the argument relating to the vires of sub-s.(5) of S 5, which was challenged on the ground that it is violative of Art.14. 4. Counsel then contended that there was really no sale of the gunny bags which were the packing materials admittedly used, and so no sales tax can be attracted at all. Such a contention was not raised before the Sales Tax Officer and we do not think that such a contention can be dealt with in this petition. 5. The only question that therefore arises is whether the entire amount of the packing charges claimed by the assessee can be exempted under R.9(f)(ii) of the Rules. This depends on the further question whether what was sold was a packet of cement, or cement with packing materials. 5. The only question that therefore arises is whether the entire amount of the packing charges claimed by the assessee can be exempted under R.9(f)(ii) of the Rules. This depends on the further question whether what was sold was a packet of cement, or cement with packing materials. In the former case, the decision in M. Kutty Hassan Kutty v. Sales Tax Officer, Ponnani (1967) (19 STC. 278) may govern the matter and the petitioner may not be entitled to exemption. If what was sold was really cement and the packing materials along with it, we do not think that 19 STC. 278 would have any application. Counsel on behalf of the Revenue has submitted that the principle of the decision in 19 STC. 278 is applicable to the facts of the case. He said that the cement, it is admitted by the petitioner, is a either sold as cement in bulk or in paper packet or in gunny bags; so also the kerosene which was the commodity with which this Court was concerned in 19 STC. 278 was sold either in bulk or in tins. The rules that were considered by this Court then were identically worded. It was therefore urged that the decision in 19 STC. 278 is indistinguishable. We are not satisfied. 6. Under the Cement Control Order, 1967 the price is fixed separately for cement and the proviso to Clause.e indicates that to the price there shall be added such charges "as may be fixed by the Central Government in respect of packing or the containers". There is no case that no such price for packing or the containers has been fixed by the Central Government. Nor is there any case that what is shown in the bill exceeds the price fixed for packing or the containers. Substantially the transaction is for the sale of cement though it might and it appears to us to involve the sale of the packing material utilised for conveying the goods namely the cement sold. So this is a case in which cement was sold along with the packing material namely, gunny bags. Primafacie therefore the entire amount will come within the definition of the term turnover in the Act and in fixing the taxable turnover as defined in the Act exemption under R.9(f)(ii) of the Rules should be granted. 7. So this is a case in which cement was sold along with the packing material namely, gunny bags. Primafacie therefore the entire amount will come within the definition of the term turnover in the Act and in fixing the taxable turnover as defined in the Act exemption under R.9(f)(ii) of the Rules should be granted. 7. It was however contended by counsel for the Revenue that the charges for packing and delivery will not take in the cost of packing material. This contention is supported by the decision of the Madras High Court in The State of Madras and Others v. R. Damodaran Chettiar & Co. (1966) (1e STC. 451). With great respect, we find it difficult to accept the dicta therein that the charges for packing and delivery will take in only the labour charges for packing and not the cost of the material used for packing. The ordinary meaning to be attributed to the words "charges for packing and delivery" (we are not concerned here only with charges for packing) must include not only the charges for the labour involved in packing but must take in the cost of the material used for packing. No reasons have been stated in the judgment in 1e STC. 451 for holding otherwise excepting the assertion that the expression under R.9(f) (ii) will take in only the cost of services. This view has not been accepted by the Madras High Court in a later ruling in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Lalgudi and two others (1969) (23 STC. 355). Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the observation-relating to the basis of the decision in 1e STC. 451 are not correct. Whatever it be, the court in 23 STC. 355 has taken a definite view that the words "charges for packing" will include the cost of the material used for packing. We think, with respect, that the view taken in 23 STC. 355 is the correct view. 8. Counsel for the Revenue then referred to the amendment introduced by the Madras State to the rule corresponding to R.9(f)(ii) of the Rules clarifying that charges for packing will include the cost of packing material and urged that for the amendment the cost of packing materials will not fall within the rule. We think that the amendment is only by way of clarification and not by alteration by addition. We think that the amendment is only by way of clarification and not by alteration by addition. The words used in R.9(f) (ii) are wide enough to take in the cost of packing materials, 9. In the light of the above, the imposition of Sales Tax amounting to Rs. 6415.75 for the year 196e-69 and Rs. 33139.0e for the year 1969-70 relating to the turnover pertaining to charges for packing is cot justified. We therefore set aside the assessment orders to the extent of deleting the above amounts from the total tax determined for the two years, this petition is ordered on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.