JUDGMENT K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. - In this group of writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the orders of assessment passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Intelligence Wing, Berhampur, making assessment of sales tax under rule 10 for the financial years 1984-85, 1985-86, and 1986-87 and under rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957, for the financial year 1987-88. 2. The petitioners' case in short is that they carry on business in partnership registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, in Aska Road, Berhampur, in Ganjam District in timber and are registered dealers under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "the OST Act" and "the CST Act"). They effect sale of timber, both round and sized at their place of business referred to above to various customers and dealers belonging to Orissa, as well as Andhra Pradesh, both on cash and credit. After sale is effected they give delivery of the goods at the same place and do not lake the responsibility for the movement of the goods. It is the responsibility and the risk of the purchasers to transport the goods to places inside and outside Orissa mainly to Andhra Pradesh passing through sales tax check-gates. At the check-gates the purchasers produce the cash memos and the way-bills and the sales tax authorities concerned never suspected the genuineness of the transactions as intra-State sales because in the documents the petitioners describe themselves as the seller of the goods and the purchasers remain both the consignor and consignee thereof. For the sales effected in their business premises the petitioners collect tax at the Orissa Sales Tax Rules at the time of filing returns (?). There was no occasion for default at any time. For the years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 they were assessed in normal course under section 12(4) of the OST Act and by and large the Sales Tax Officer (opposite party No. 4) accepted the returned figures for the purpose of assessment. As the petitioners did not carry on business on inter-State sale basis, they did not file any return under the CST Act nor pay Central sales tax. For the financial year 1987-88 assessment, however, was made under rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957. As the petitioners did not carry on business on inter-State sale basis, they did not file any return under the CST Act nor pay Central sales tax. For the financial year 1987-88 assessment, however, was made under rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957. On the basis of reports of fraud submitted by the Inspector of Sales Tax, Intelligence Wing, Berhampur, dated September 20, 1988, the Sales Tax Officer, Intelligence Wing, Berhampur (opposite party No. 3), reopened the assessment proceedings for the years 1984-85 up to 1987-88 under rule 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, on the ground that the petitioners effected inter-State sales to purchasers and dealers belonging to Andhra Pradesh and thereby evaded payment of Central sales tax. A notice being served, the petitioners appeared and contended that they did not effect inter-State sales to outside purchasers during the years under assessment. All the sales took place at their business premises at Aska Road, Berhampur and the purchasers took delivery of goods for the purpose of transportation at their risk. The petitioners never undertook to transport the goods to places outside the State. Accordingly, sales tax from the purchasers was collected at the sale point at the rate of 8 per cent. The transactions were not in accordance with section 3(a) of the CST Act and so the petitioners did not conceal any turnover of the alleged inter-State sales and there was no evasion of tax. Opposite party No. 3, however, was not satisfied with the explanation offered on the ground that the petitioners were shown both as consignor and consignee of some transactions and took the view that the turnover of the petitioners for the inter-State sales escaped assessment and so he determined the turnover of inter-State sales for the years under consideration and assessed Central sales tax. 3. The opposite parties in their counter have stated that for the assessment years 1984-85 up to 1987-88, the petitioners by the impugned orders passed by opposite party No. 3 were assessed under rules 10 and 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules as the sales effected by them were in the course of inter-State trade and commerce taxable under section 3(a) of the CST Act. Against the impugned assessment orders appeals lay to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Berhampur and further appeals lie to the Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack. Against the impugned assessment orders appeals lay to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Berhampur and further appeals lie to the Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack. Whether the transactions were intra-State or inter-State sales are purely questions of fact and evidence and it is for the fact finding appellate authorities to interpret the documents and evidence so as to make a fresh determination as to whether the documents and evidence on records reveal intra-State or inter-State sales for the purpose of assessment either under the Orissa Sales Tax Act or under the Central Sales Tax Act. As the petitioners have not taken recourse to the available efficacious alternative remedy according to law, the writ petitions filed directly in the High Court are not maintainable. It is further stated that while the goods moved through the Girisola check-gate at the border of Orissa-Andhra Pradesh, the petitioners furnished way-bills from which it appears that they had despatched the goods by trucks and such despatches were mentioned in register No. 161 (register of movement of goods to the outside States) showing the petitioners as the consignors of the goods. The entries were signed on behalf of the petitioners so as to indicate that it is they who are responsible for movement of the goods to destinations outside the State. The opposite parties have denied the petitioners' averment that they have never paid Central sales tax. As a matter of fact, from the year 1980-81 up to 1984-85 they have been assessed to Central sales tax for inter-State sales. It is finally contended that the petitioners concealed their inter-State sale transactions and attempted evasion of tax. Therefore, on the basis of the reports of fraud and after considering the materials which came to light, they have rightly been assessed under rules 10 and 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules. 4. Opposite party No. 3 examined the outgoing registers maintained at Girisola check-gate and found that petitioner No. 1 had actually moved timber in round logs and different sizes on different dates to different places in Andhra Pradesh showing itself as the consignor of the goods, the consignee being the purchasers. He also heard the manager of petitioner No. 1 who offered explanations in defence of the charge of suppression of inter-State sale transactions. He also heard the manager of petitioner No. 1 who offered explanations in defence of the charge of suppression of inter-State sale transactions. Ultimately, he concluded that the transactions shown by the petitioners as intra-State sales were actually inter-State sales and thus, there was suppression of inter-State turnover and evasion of Central sales tax. 5. At the time of hearing we directed Mr. Misra, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties to produce the outgoing registers of Girisola check-gate so as to see for ourselves as to whether the petitioners were shown as consignor or both as consignor and consignee of timber moving in vehicles from Orissa to Andhra Pradesh. We saw a few entries showing petitioner No. 1 as the consignor of goods. We also noticed entries showing the purchasers of goods from the petitioners noted as the consignors thereof. 6. We heard the cases on merits at the stage of admission because at that time we thought that on the facts presented before us it would be possible to determine whether the transactions were intra-State or inter-State sales. But now having considered all the materials on record, we find that the facts are not clear as we thought to be. There are materials in support of the petitioners as well as against them. When the facts are disputed, it will not be possible on the part of the writ court to arrive at a final conclusion on a question of law. 7. Out of the host of decisions cited on either side, we would like to refer to the following two decisions : In [1983] 53 STC 315 (SC); AIR 1983 SC 603 (Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa), it was held in a sales tax matter from Orissa as follows : "In the instant case against the order of assessment made by Sales Tax Officer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act the petitioners, assessees, can get adequate redress against the wrongful acts complained of. The petitioners, have the right to prefer an appeal before the prescribed authority under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Act. The petitioners, have the right to prefer an appeal before the prescribed authority under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Act. If the petitioners are dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal, they can prefer a further appeal to the Tribunal under sub-section (3) of section 23, and then ask for a case to be stated upon a question of law for the opinion of the High Court under section 24. The Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under article 226 of the Constitution. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. Furthermore, the Act provides for an adequate safeguard against an arbitrary or unjust assessment. The petitioners have a right to prefer an appeal under sub-section (1) of section 23 subject to their payment of the admitted amount of tax as enjoined by the proviso thereto. As regards the disputed amount of tax, the petitioners have the remedy of applying for stay of recovery to the Commissioner of Sales Tax under clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (5) of section 13 of the Act." In [1988] 70 STC 45 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Suresh Chand Jain), it was held by the Supreme Court that a sale can be said to be in the course of inter-State trade only if two conditions concur, viz., (i) a sale of goods and (ii) a transport of those goods from one State to another. Unless both these conditions were satisfied, there could be no sale in the course of inter-State trade. There must be evidence that the transportation was occasioned by a contract and as a result goods moved, out of the bargain between the parties, from one State to another. In fact this decision reflects the correct position of law with regard to inter-State sale of goods pronounced by the Supreme Court over the years in several decisions. For application of the principle, the facts of a particular case and the interpretation of different documents which come to light form the basis. 8. In fact this decision reflects the correct position of law with regard to inter-State sale of goods pronounced by the Supreme Court over the years in several decisions. For application of the principle, the facts of a particular case and the interpretation of different documents which come to light form the basis. 8. By the above discussion we make it clear that though we intended to dispose of the writ petitions at the stage of admission on merits assuming that the facts were undisputed, we have not been able to do so because, ultimately we have found that the decision on facts should be left to the fact finding appellate authorities, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Sales Tax Tribunal. The petitioner should, therefore, approach the first appellate authority by filing appeals which, however, by now are barred by limitation. While preferring the appeals, the petitioners should apply for condonation of limitation and the appellate authority shall condone limitation and accept the appeals for hearing. 9. Subject to the observations made above, the writ petitions are dismissed. SMT. A. K. PADHI, J. - I agree. Petitions dismissed.