( 1 ) IN this writ petition in which the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belgaum, the following question of law arises for consideration : whether lisa sugar is declared goods under section 14 (viii) of the Central Sales Tax Act ("c. S. T. Act" for short), and if answer to the said question is in the affirmative, whether there is authority for levy of tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ("the State Act" for short ). ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The assessee is a general merchant. Among various other commodities in which he deals, lisa sugar is one of them. According to the petitioner, it is only an allotropy of sugar. Sugar is powdered by a mechanical process and thereafter a small percentage of glucose and water is added to it and dried. It contains 99 per cent of sucrose. Thus, lisa sugar is only powdered soft sugar and in vernacular it is called "boora sakre". In the assessment proceedings for the period between 25th October, 1984 and 12th november, 1985, the turnover of the assessee in respect of lisa sugar was Rs. 5,18,208. 17 and also Rs. 2,30,279. 00 for the period ending 31st March, 1985 and 12th November, 1985 respectively. The assessee claimed exemption from tax under the State Act relying on section 14 (viii) of the C. S. T. Act and on entry 31b of the Fifth Schedule to the State Act. This claim was negatived by the authority on the ground that lisa sugar was not one of the exempted items. In coming to this conclusion, the authority relied on the judgment of this Court in Dilip Kumar peppermints v. State of Karnataka [1986] 63 STC 143. The authorities treated lisa sugar as general goods and proceeded to tax under section 5 (1) of the State Act. Though the assessee had a right of appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, he has presented this petition questioning the legality of the order, for the reason that the authority had stated that it was following the decision of this Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Peppermints [1986] 63 STC 143, and therefore no useful propose would be served in preferring the appeal. ( 3 ) IN support of the contention that lisa sugar is not liable to tax under the provisions of the karnataka Sales Tax Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as follows : "sugar" is a declared goods under section 14 of the C. S. T. Act vide clause (viii) thereof. Relevant part of section 14 of the C. S. T. Act reads : "section 14. Certain goods to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce.-It is hereby declared that the following goods are of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce :- (i) cereals, that is to say, -. . . . . . . . . ii) sugar, as defined in item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Act 1 of 1944 ). " definition of the expression "sugar" contained under tariff item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the central Excises and Salt Act, reads : ugar' means any form of sugar in which the sucrose content, if expressed as a percentage of the material dried to constant weight at 105 degree celsius, would be more than 90. " learned counsel submitted that lisa sugar contains 99 per cent sucrose (dry basis) and answers the description of the word "sugar" as contained in the Central Excise Act and therefore it has to be treated as "declared goods" under section 14 (viii) of the C. S. T. Act. If it is so, then the restrictions contained in section 15 of the C. S. T. Act gets attracted. The restrictions are : (i) The rate of tax under the State Act cannot exceed 4 per cent; (ii) the levy must be single point; and (iii) there should be provision for reimbursement of tax if after payment of tax on sale or purchase of declared goods within the State, there were to be subsequent sale in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. The learned counsel submitted that in respect of declared goods, provision has been made under the State Act for levying sales tax in conformity with the provisions of section 15 of the C. S. T. Act vide section 5 (4) read with the Fourth Schedule, that is, at the specified rates in respect of each of the declared goods specified in the Fourth Schedule. But as far as sugar or lisa sugar was concerned, it is not one of the goods specified in the Fourth Schedule. In the absence of any entry in the Fourth Schedule, the provision of section 5 (4) is not attracted and if that provision is not attracted, as lisa sugar is also sugar, which is a declared goods, there could be no levy of tax under section 5 (1) of the State Act also. The learned counsel also pointed out that this question did not directly arise for consideration in the case of Dilip Kumar Peppermints [1986 ]63 STC143 (Kar ). ( 4 ) THE case of Dilip Kumar Peppermints [1986 ]63 STC143 (Kar ) arose by way of appeal against the order of suo motu revision by the Commissioner of commercial Taxes, under section 22a of the State Act. The lower authorities had exempted lisa sugar from tax as "sugar" was an exempted item under entry 31b of the Fifth Schedule and in their view lisa sugar was also sugar and, therefore, exempt from tax. The Commissioner reversed the order in revision and held that lisa sugar was not an exempted item under entry 31b of the fifth Schedule to the State Act. That decision was in appeal before this Court. Entry 31b of the fifth Schedule to the State Act, reads : "31b. Sugar other than sugar candy, confectionery and the like. " the contention that lisa sugar was exempted under entry 31b of the Fifth Schedule was rejected on the ground that having regard to the clear wording of item 31b aforesaid what was exempted was "sugar" used by the consumers in their day-to-day life as an article of food and not a special kind of sugar, namely, "lisa sugar", particularly having regard to the words "other than. . . . . "used in the entry. In other words, the court held that lisa sugar prepared out of sugar was not an exempted item. ( 5 ) FROM the discussion and decision in the said case, it is clear that the question as to whether "lisa sugar" was "declared goods" and consequently the same not having been included in the fourth Schedule to the State Act, no tax was leviable on its turnover under the State Act was not at all in issue. ( 5 ) FROM the discussion and decision in the said case, it is clear that the question as to whether "lisa sugar" was "declared goods" and consequently the same not having been included in the fourth Schedule to the State Act, no tax was leviable on its turnover under the State Act was not at all in issue. ( 6 ) IT is in these circumstances, the question set out first, namely, whether lisa sugar is a "declared goods" in terms of section 14 (viii) of the C. S. T. Act arises for consideration. From the wording of that item, it is clear that lisa sugar would be sugar and a declared goods if it is sugar as defined in the Central Excises and Salt Act. This is a question of fact which has got to be decided by the authorities having due regard to the definition of that word. For these reasons, we answer the question set out first as follows : lisa sugar would be declared goods under section 14 (viii) of the C. S. T. Act if it is "sugar" as defined under tariff item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and if it is so, then no tax is leviable on lisa sugar under the State Act. In the light of our answer as above, the assessing authority has to decide a question of fact, namely, whether lisa sugar is sugar as defined in the Central Excises and Salt Act. If on that question it comes to the conclusion that lisa sugar is "sugar", it would be a "declared goods" under section 14 (viii) of the C. S. T. Act and would not be liable to tax under section 5 (1) of the state Act. If only the conclusion is that lisa sugar is not "declared goods", then only its turnover would be liable to tax under section 5 (1) of the State Act. ( 7 ) AS stated earlier, the assessing authority proceeded on the basis that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Peppermints [1986] 63 STC 143, the contention of the assessee that it was a declared goods, had to be rejected. As pointed out above, that view is not correct. ( 7 ) AS stated earlier, the assessing authority proceeded on the basis that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Peppermints [1986] 63 STC 143, the contention of the assessee that it was a declared goods, had to be rejected. As pointed out above, that view is not correct. The question raised by the assessee that lisa sugar is a declared goods, has got to be decided by the authorities, for, the liability or non-liability to pay the tax depends upon the finding on that question. ( 8 ) IN the result, we make the following order : (i) the writ petition is allowed in part; (ii) the assessment order, in so far it relates to the levy of tax on the turnover of lisa sugar, is quashed; (iii) the matter is remitted to the assessing authority with a direction to decide the question as to whether "lisa sugar" is "declared goods" in terms of section 14 (viii) of the C. S. T. Act read with the definition of the word "sugar" as contained in the Central Excises and Salt Act; (iv) if the finding of fact is that "lisa sugar" is declared goods, the respondent shall not levy any tax on the turnover of "lisa sugar" under the State Act; (v) if the finding of the authority that "lisa sugar" is not a declared goods, then the authorities may proceed to make a fresh order levying tax under section 5 (1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax act. Sri M. R. Achar, Government Advocate, is permitted to file his memo of appearance. ( 9 ) WRIT petition partly allowed.