JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - On hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue as well as the assessee and even after going through all the orders, we have been unable to know as to what is the article the sale of which is liable to taxation under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. It appears to have been assumed, which is the basis for the subsequent debate, as to whether the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal & Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1988] 68 STC 324, laying down the proposition that the firewood could be assessed only as firewood at the rate of tax prevalent during the period or whether the situation would be governed by the decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law,) Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. C. R. Paul & Sons [1985] 59 STC 321 in regard to which, following the said decision in T.R.C. No. 8 of 1983 this Court by the judgment dated November 13, 1984 took the view that the assessee will not be entitled to the benefit of the concessional rate of 1 per cent under entry No. 55 of the First Schedule which was, it is submitted, confirmed by the Supreme Court by the order dated April 19, 1991 dismissing the Special Leave Petition No. 7582 of 1985. [See [1991] 81 STC FRSC 13 Sl. No. 44]. 2. In this revision case it is urged that in Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal's case [1988] 68 STC 324 (SC) except and beyond the proposition that firewood could be assessed only as firewood at the rate of tax prevalent during the period, the other necessary aspect as to whether it could be understood as timber liable to be taxed under the relevant entry was not considered. Therefore reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) v. C. R. Paul & Sons [1985] 59 STC 231, a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, which is followed thereafter by this Court also consistently as could be seen from the order dated November 13, 1984 in T.R.C. No. 8 of 1983, which is also confirmed by the Supreme Court by the rejection of the Special Leave Petition [See [1991] 81 STC FRSC 13 Sl. No. 44] as stated above. 3. No. 44] as stated above. 3. Having considered the decision in Deputy Commissioner of Sates Tax (Law) v. C. R. Paul & Sons [1984] 59 STC 231 (Ker), we find that not only that the required factual matrix is available therein, this Court has considered the terms and conditions of the contract in all its material aspects to consider the question as to whether the article sought to be made liable to sales tax under the provisions of the Act would be what is known as "firewood" or what is knows as "timber". On going through the said decision what we found is the staring situation of the required factual matrix. What was the position with regard to the factual matrix in T.R.C. No. 8 of 1983, although not floating on the surface of the judgment, the order of the Supreme Court makes it clear that although a question of fact, the manner in which the High Court has treated the matter and has come to its conclusion, concludes the matter beyond doubt. It has to be said therefor, as a consequence, that in both the situations there was no difficulty with regard to the factual basis as they edify for the consequential conclusion as to which of the articles would govern the situation of liability. 4. Reading the orders of the three authorities we have this difficulty showing that the orders proceed on the presumption in the absence of the examination of the conclusion. The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle, in the order dated February 15, 1983 - the trial authority - refers to the item in question as Sl. No. 12 wherein the assessee has shown the article to be firewood. It is obvious and quite possible that the article may be shown and described as firewood. Still it has to be factually ascertained, as has been done by this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) v. C. R. Paul & Sons [1985] 59 STC 231. Even an attempt does not appear to have been made in regard to this aspect. In regard to this what is observed by the trial authority can be reproduced hereafter : "The assessee-company has described the raw materials purchased for the manufacture of pulp as 'firewood'. What they have actually purchased is pulp wood of selected species having prescribed dimensions fit for the manufacture of wood pulp. In regard to this what is observed by the trial authority can be reproduced hereafter : "The assessee-company has described the raw materials purchased for the manufacture of pulp as 'firewood'. What they have actually purchased is pulp wood of selected species having prescribed dimensions fit for the manufacture of wood pulp. Both the purchaser and seller are aware that what is purchased is for the manufacture of wood pulp. This issue is directly covered by the decision is A. H. K. and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu [1980] 46 STC 117 (Mad.) and P. R. Lakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu [1983] 52 STC 5 (Mad.). The decisions cited by the assessee do not apply to the facts of this case." It is obvious that the assessing authority has surrendered his judgment to the averments containing the description of the article by the assessee. 5. The position before the first appellate authority, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, in his order dated March 1, 1984 is not different in any way : 6. In paragraph 7 it would be found that the process of surrendering judgment continues and the first appellate authority has considered the question in the following manner : "The turnover involved is Rs. 36,930.96. The assessing authority who examined this point had held that what the appellant had purchased was pulp wood for the manufacture of wood pulp and hence such purchases could only be treated as pulp wood and not as firewood. The learned counsel on the other hand would argue that the wood purchased by the appellant-company is known in common parlance as firewood coming under item No. 55 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and being a specified item in the Schedule the firewood purchased and used by the appellants as raw materials could be taxed only at 1 per cent. The fact that the so-called firewood purchased by the appellant company was used as raw materials is however not denied." Immediately thereafter there is a jump to refer the necessary case law by placing reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in A. H. K. and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu [1980] 46 STC 117. 7. The history repeats with the second appellate authority - Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench - in the order date October 8, 1990. 7. The history repeats with the second appellate authority - Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench - in the order date October 8, 1990. The question is considered only in paragraph 17 of the order of the Tribunal which is described already at the outset of this judgment. 8. Considering the situation it is jurisdictional that the authorities must know, determine and adjudicate as to what is the article that is sought to be made liable to the levy of sales tax. This has not been done. 9. The consequence follows as a sequitur. The impugned order dated October 8, 1990 of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode in T.A. No. 143 of 1984 gets quashed and set aside and the proceedings are remitted to the Tribunal to consider the question of determination as to what is the article that is sought to be made liable to the levy of sales tax. The Tribunal also may consider the necessity of determining the said question by passing necessary orders in regard thereto. The revision case stands disposed of as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.