Packing material and manufacturing inputs are judged by functional use and transaction facts, not labels or separate billing.

Packing material and manufacturing inputs were treated according to their factual and functional role, not by rigid labels or separate billing alone. Wooden boxes packed with oil engines were not automatically separate resold goods under section 21; their treatment depended on whether the packing formed part of a composite sale, and the matter required factual examination. Set-off under rule 42 was allowed for name-plates, wooden strips, cellac glue, hose pipes, hardware, packing material and timber used in manufacture because they formed part of the manufacturing activity or an integral adjunct. Most listed items were also accepted as consumable stores, but ghan and hammer were excluded because they were tools used in manufacture, not consumables.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether wooden boxes packed with oil engines could be treated as separately resold goods for the purpose of section 21 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. (ii) Whether set-off under rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 was available in respect of name-plates, wooden strips, cellac glue, hose pipes, hardware, packing material and timber used in manufacture. (iii) Whether acetylene gas, diamond dresser, hardware, emery cloth, colour, ghan, hammer, pana-sets, cutting oil, welding rods, foundation bolts, painting brush, pressure gauge, emery paper, crank shaft and machine tools were consumable stores under section 13(1)(B) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.

Issue: Whether wooden boxes packed with oil engines could be treated as separately resold goods for the purpose of section 21 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.

Analysis: The character of a transaction involving packing material depends on the facts and on whether the packing and the contents form one composite sale or separate sales. The mere presence of section 21 and the separate showing of prices does not conclude the matter. The Tribunal had rejected the dealer's claim only by treating resale of the boxes as excluded by section 21, without examining the factual nature of the transaction in the light of the governing principles on sale of packing material.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the negative, in favour of the dealer and against the Revenue, and the matter required factual examination by the Tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether set-off under rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 was available in respect of name-plates, wooden strips, cellac glue, hose pipes, hardware, packing material and timber used in manufacture.

Analysis: Goods used in an integral process connected with manufacture may qualify as goods used in manufacture where their use is commercially necessary and forms part of the manufacturing activity. Applying that principle, name-plates were treated as necessary for the marketability of the finished product, and the other listed items were held to be part of the manufacturing process or its integral adjunct. The Tribunal's reliance on the earlier line of authority was upheld.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether acetylene gas, diamond dresser, hardware, emery cloth, colour, ghan, hammer, pana-sets, cutting oil, welding rods, foundation bolts, painting brush, pressure gauge, emery paper, crank shaft and machine tools were consumable stores under section 13(1)(B) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.

Analysis: Consumable stores are to be judged by their role in manufacture, not by whether they are capital assets. Most of the items were accepted as consumable stores on the facts, but ghan and hammer were treated differently because they were tools used in manufacture and not materials consumed as consumable stores or as part of the end-product.

Conclusion: The issue was answered partly in the negative in respect of ghan and hammer, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and partly in the affirmative for the remaining items, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of by sustaining the dealer's claim on the principal manufacturing and set-off issues, while limiting relief only in relation to ghan and hammer.

Ratio Decidendi: Whether packing material or manufacturing inputs qualify for tax treatment depends on the factual nature of the transaction and the functional role of the goods in manufacture, and not on any rigid rule drawn merely from the statutory description or from separate billing alone.

---