JUDGMENT 1. - These four revision petitions involve common questions of law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order. 2. All these four revisions are directed against the same assessee i.e. M/s Mehar Singh Harbans Singh Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory Gajsinghpur and relates to the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively. 3. The assessee is a dealer in agricultural produce including food grains and oil seeds and is also engaged in the business of ginning and pressing the cotton. Initially, the Assessing Officer has accepted the assessee's return for Nil taxability turn over, which consisted of ST paid Wheat, Muster seeds and Bardana. However, the assessments were re-opened on believing that the assessee manufactures the cotton bails by ginning and pressing and in that manufacture, it used the packing material but he did not pay the sales tax on such packing materials as provided in the last proviso to Section 5(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, which reads as under: "Provided also that when any goods are sold, packed in any material, the tax shall is leviable on the sale of such packing material, whether charged separately or not, at the same rate as is applicable to the sale of goods themselves; and if the goods are exempted from tax under Section 4 or have already been subjected to tax under the Act, then at the rate notified for such packing material from time to time." 4. From the perusal of the assessment order, it is clear that the assessee is not selling the cotton bails but is only ginning and pressing the cotton which is supplied by other entities and it has only charged its remuneration for ginning and pressing the cotton. However, the Assessing Officer by invoking the last proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act imposed the tax on the value of the pressing and Pattis and also imposed the penalty and interest of different sums for four years under Section 11 - B of the Act. 5. However, the Assessing Officer by invoking the last proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act imposed the tax on the value of the pressing and Pattis and also imposed the penalty and interest of different sums for four years under Section 11 - B of the Act. 5. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) found that from some of the bills, it appears that from some of the parties, the assessee has recovered the price of Press, Patti and hessian, which has been used in manufacturing cotton bails, in the name of full covering charges but however the matter requires enquiry as to what exact amount of the sale which has been made in this manner. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeals and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 17.6.1995. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 17.6.1995 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer where the assessee in each case filed the cross objections to the appeal. The Rajasthan Tax Board rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue and allowed the cross-objections filed by the assessee vide its Judgment dated 17.8.1998. The Rajasthan Tax Board held that the Revenue has failed to prove the sale of packing material by the assessee. Hence these revision petitions by the Revenue. 7. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Johari, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.L. Jain, the learned Counsel for the respondent and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 8. So far as levy of tax on the price of packing material by invoking last proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act is concerned, I am of opinion that the levy of tax cannot be sustained. In the case of A.C.T.O. Ward III, Circle-B, Bikaner v. M/s Shakti Scoring & Milling Mill, S.B. Sales Tax Revision No. 463 of 1999. decided on 16.12.1999) , this court has held that for invoking last proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act, it is a pre-condition that there must be a sale of principal goods which were packed in packing material and in absence thereof, the question of invoking last proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act does not at all arise. decided on 16.12.1999) , this court has held that for invoking last proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act, it is a pre-condition that there must be a sale of principal goods which were packed in packing material and in absence thereof, the question of invoking last proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act does not at all arise. The language of last proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act is very clear in its term that if any goods are sold which are packed in packing material, the tax shall be levied on the sale of such packing material. Therefore, where there is no sale of principal goods by the Dealer and if the said Dealer is doing only the job work, the question of levy of tax does not at all arise as in that case, no goods are sold in packed condition but merely delivery of finished goods have been made in packed condition. However, in case, packing material has been sold independently in addition to charging the job work charges, it may be subjected to tax in accordance with the law but not otherwise by invoking the last provision to Section 5(1) of the Act. 9. In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner found that the assessee is manufacturing the cotton bails through his pressing machines for a number of traders and in that manufacture, he has used Press Patti and Hesian and has also issued the bills for the same. The bills have been issued by charging full covering charges. The learned Deputy Commissioner inferred that the assessee has separately charged for the packing material in the name of full covering charges and thus, the matter requires to be scrutinised. He, there, directed the remand of the matter for further scrutiny and for making fresh assessment order. 10. The Rajasthan Tax Board has obviously not referred to this finding and jumped to the conclusion that the Revenue has failed to prove how and in what manner, the packing material has been sold. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Rajasthan Tax Board was not right in allowing the cross-objection filed by the assessee. However, on the finding that the assessee was merely engaged in doing job work and was not selling cotton, the revenue was not entitled to succeed in its appeals by invoking proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act. 11. However, on the finding that the assessee was merely engaged in doing job work and was not selling cotton, the revenue was not entitled to succeed in its appeals by invoking proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act. 11. In the result, these revision petitions succeed. The order dated 17.8.1998 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer is set aside and the order dated 17.6.1995 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is maintained. The assessing authority is directed to scrutinise earth case on the basis of the material before it and to record a finding from the material whether sale of packing material has taken place and if it is established that it is a case of independent transaction of packing material, the same may be taxed at appropriate rates applicable. In coming to this conclusion, the Assessing Officer, shall not be influenced by the observations made by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) about the inference drawn him. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******