RAJAGOPALAN, J.

These petitions filed by the State under section 12B of the Madras General Sales Tax Act arose out of assessment proceedings for the years 1951-52 and 1952-53. The assessee was the same, and the points that arose for determination in both the petitions are identical.

The Appellate Tribunal held that in both the years the assessee was entitled to the exemption granted by rule 5(1)(g)(ii) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules. The amount for 1951-52 was Rs. 6, 743 representing the cost of gunny bags, and a further sum of Rs. 33, 761 representing the cost of mats etc, which the assessee used for packing the materials which he had sold. In the year 1952-53 the items were Rs. 3, 554, the cost of gunnies, and Rs. 38, 669, the cost of mats. The Tribunal found that the appellants had shown the packing charges separately from the price of the goods sold. The further finding of the Tribunal was :

"We fail to understand how the Commercial Tax Officer held that the charges realised by the appellants for these services are assessable to tax. There can be no service on account of packing without the use of packing materials and the attempt of the Commercial Tax Officer to separate the materials from the charges is not warranted. The additions made on account of gunnies and mats for the two years will therefore be deleted." *

It was the correctness of these findings based upon the application of rule 5(1)(g)(ii) that the State challenged.

The relevant portion of rule 5(1) runs :-

"...... In determining the net turnover the amounts specified in clauses (a) to (i) shall subject to the conditions specified therein, be deducted from the gross turnover of a dealer ......(g) all amounts falling under the following two heads, when specified and charged for by the dealer separately, without including them in the price of the goods sold :-

(i) freight;

(ii) charges for packing and delivery and other such like charges."

The Tribunal found that the charges for packing were specified separately by the dealer without including them in the price of the goods sold. The cost of the materials used for packing, the gunny bags and the mats, was included in the charges for packing. The question is does this satisfy the requirements of rule 5(1)(g)(ii).

The main contention of the learned Government Pleader was that only cost of services for packing would fall within the scope of rule 5(1)(g)(ii), and that would not include the cost of the materials used for packing. It is not, of course, the amount involved that can determine the scope of rule 5(1)(g)(ii).

In our opinion, the requirements of rule 5(1)(g)(ii) were satisfied by the assessee. As we pointed out, he showed the charges for packing separately in his bills, without including them in the price of the goods sold. No doubt, his charges for packing included the cost of the materials, but the cost of the materials used for packing the gunny bags and the mats was not shown as different items in the bills. It was inclusive charges that he added to the bills for "packing". The learned Government Pleader urged that the expression "other such like services" in rule 5(1)(g)(ii) delimited the scope of the earlier expression "charges for packing and delivery." Such an interpretation of a statutory provision, we are unable to accept. Charges for packing as such, if they have been specified and charged by the dealer separately without including them in the price of the goods sold, should suffice to bring the claim within the scope of rule 5(1)(g)(ii). Even if the expression "other such like services" has to be interpreted on the application of the principle ejusdem generis, that expression by itself could not limit what the statutory provision exempts from inclusion in the gross turnover, "charges for packing."In Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. v. The State of Madras the inclusion of the cost of packing materials in the assessable turnover of the assesse was sustained on the ground, that the