Ramachandra Iyer, J.
1. These two revision cases raise the question of liability to sales tax of turnovers representing the price of packing materials employed for effecting sales of the cotton and yarn respectively by the assessees in the two cases. The question whether the turnover relating to packing materials would be assessable to tax, there being no claim for exemption under Rule 5 (1) (g) (ii) of the Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, was considered in two decisions of this Court, viz., Varasukhi and Co. v. Province of Madras : AIR1951Mad254 and Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co., Ltd. v. State of Madras  5 S.T.C. 354. It was held that where there was a sale of certain goods, the intention being to sell the goods as packed, there would be a sale of the packing materials as well and the turnover relating to them would be liable to sales tax.
2. Mr. Sethuraman, who appeared for the assessee, contended that the two decisions required reconsideration in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Gannon Dnnkerley and Co., Ltd.  9 S.T.C. 353. We do not agree that the decisions in the two cases are in any way contradictory to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. In State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co., Ltd.  9 S.T.C. 353, the Supreme Court laid down that four conditions must be satisfied before there could be a sale of goods, viz., there should be (1) an agreement between the parties for the purpose of transferring title to goods, (2) capacity of the parties to contract, (3) money consideration and (4) as a result of the transaction the property in the goods should actually pass to the buyer. It cannot be disputed having regard to the findings arrived at by the Tribunal that the last three conditions have been satisfied in the present case. The question then is, whether there has been an agreement between the parties for the purpose of transferring title in the packing materials. When there is an agreement to purchase cotton to be delivered by the seller to the buyers, it is implicit in the contract that the goods should be delivered as packed. We can, therefore, imply that there is a contract to pay for and purchase the packing materials as well. This was the principle that was laid down in Varasukhi and Co. v. Province of Madras  2 S.T.C. 1 and in Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. v. The State of Madras  5 S.T.C. 354.
3. It was next contended that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to charge for the packing materials and that there being no consideration for the transfer of property in the packing materials, it should be held that there was no sale. The Appellate Tribunal has rejected the case of the assessee that he did not intend to charge for the packing materials. That finding of fact, which is supported by the evidence and circumstances of the case, is binding upon us. The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the assessee would be liable to sales tax in respect of the turnover relating to the packing materials for cotton and yarn sold by them is correct.
4. The revision cases fail and are dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee for Rs. 100.