Packing material taxability depends on sale-price inclusion, while revisional power cannot rest on conjecture.

Packing material is includible in taxable turnover only where there is an express or implied agreement to sell it and its value forms part of the sale price; on the stated facts, gunny bags used for jaggery were not separately priced, were negligible in value, and the goods were sold on net weight, so the bags were not taxable. Revisional interference is permissible only on concrete material showing perversity or legal error; where the revisional order rests on assumptions rather than evidence, interference is unwarranted and the appellate finding stands.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the value of gunny bags used for packing jaggery formed part of the sale price and was includible in the taxable turnover. (ii) Whether the Joint Commissioner was justified in invoking suo motu revisional power to disturb the first appellate authority's finding.

Issue (i): Whether the value of gunny bags used for packing jaggery formed part of the sale price and was includible in the taxable turnover.

Analysis: The governing test under section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is whether there was an express or implied agreement to sell the packing material and whether the price charged included its value. The value of the gunny bags was found to be negligible compared with the price of jaggery, no separate price was charged for the bags, and the goods were sold on the basis of net weight. On the facts, there was no material to show that the packing material was sold as part of the bargain or that its value entered the sale price.

Conclusion: The value of the gunny bags was not includible in the taxable turnover and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Joint Commissioner was justified in invoking suo motu revisional power to disturb the first appellate authority's finding.

Analysis: Under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, revisional interference required proper basis and sufficient material. The revisional order rested on assumptions about the quality of the gunny bags and the distance of transport rather than on concrete evidence. In the absence of material showing perversity or legal error in the appellate order, interference in revision was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The suo motu revisional order was unjustified and was liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate authority's decision was restored, and the assessee succeeded on both the taxability of the packing material and the challenge to the revisional interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Packing material is taxable only where the facts show an express or implied sale of the packing material or inclusion of its value in the sale price; revisional power cannot be exercised on conjectures in the absence of concrete material.

---