JUDGMENT
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. The question that arises for determination in the present writ petition is whether the three items of milk food, i.e., Amul Taza, Amul Gold and Amul Slim “N” Trim Milk, manufactured by the petitioners, are items of pasteurised milk to fall within item No. 16 of the First Schedule to the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 or whether the said items are milk or milk products as visualised under item No. 6(a) of the Second Schedule to the aforesaid Act. An answer to the above question will determine the tax liability of the products in question. It may be noticed at this stage that items included in the First Schedule to the Act are exempted items whereas those included in the Second Schedule attract the levy of tax at the rates prescribed. A specific order dated November 8, 2001 passed by the assessing authority as well as the communication dated February 25, 2002 issued by the Additional Commissioner of Taxes taking the view that the items are not items of pasteurised milk and therefore are exigible to tax, has been assailed in the present writ petition.
2. Mr. G.K. Joshi, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners, has elaborately argued the case by placing before the court the relevant parts of the work of a renowned authority in dairy technology available in a book filed as “Outlines of Dairy Technology”. The aforesaid literature has been relied upon by Mr. Joshi to acquaint the court with the manufacturing process of pasteurised milk and having done that Mr. Joshi has led the court through the detailed averments made in the writ petition to show that the milk items are indeed items of pasteurised milk and therefore fall within item 16 of the First Schedule.
3. The averments made in the writ application including those describing the manufacturing process, which the petitioners claim to be in prevalence in their factory unit for production of the food items has also not been denied by the official respondents by filing any affidavit.
4. The powers of the authorities under the Act to decide as to whether a particular item/commodity is exigible to tax or not and if so at what rate is a part of exercise of quasi-judicial power vested in such authorities. The basic requirement of exercise of a quasi-judicial power is to take into account the contentions of the parties and after due consideration of the same to arrive at a particular conclusion by indicating the specific reasons for the conclusion reached.
5. The task of identifying items exigible to tax and indicating the basis thereof, if the need arises, and also the determination of the rate of tax payable is primarily that of the assessing authority under the Act. The role of the writ court in such matter is broad and supervisory and the writ court should not convert itself into a fact-finding forum. In the present case, notwithstanding the fact that cogent materials were placed before the authority in support of the claim of the petitioners that the food items in question are pasteurised milk, as evident from the annexures enclosed to the writ petition, the impugned orders dated November 8, 2001, and February 25, 2002 do not disclose on what basis the food items have been held to be not pasteurised milk. What is indicated in the above two orders is the ultimate conclusion of the authority that the items in question are not pasteurised milk. There being no indication as to how the mind has been applied in coming to the said conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that both the impugned orders in question would not be legally tenable. Accordingly, while interfering and setting aside the impugned orders dated November 8, 2001 and February 25, 2002 remit the matter to the Commissioner of Taxes to have the issue with regard to the taxability of the food items in question, determined by the competent authority under the Act by passing a reasoned order and after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. The officer entrusted with the task, by the Commissioner of Taxes, will be at liberty to take expert opinion. If required, and to carry out all such inspections and investigations as may be required to enable him to come to the right conclusion.
6. This Court has noticed that while entertaining this writ petition, an interim order dated April 5, 2002 had been passed restraining the respondents from realising the tax on the food items in question and at the same time requiring the petitioners to maintain accounts regarding the sale of the three items during the period of pendency of the writ petition. While reiterating the aforesaid interim arrangement, till disposal of the matter by the authority, as directed hereinabove, this Court further directs the petitioners to continue to file returns before the competent authority under the Act for the three food items in question, though the assessments in respect of the turnover on the food items shall be kept pending by the assessing authority.
7. Writ petition stands closed in terms of the aforesaid directions.