R. K. GULATI, J. This writ petition is directed against two assessment orders one made under the provisions of the U. P. Trade Tax Act and the other under the Central Sales Tax Act, both these assessment orders are in respect of assessment year 1990-91, copies of which have been filed as annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition. 2. In the year in dispute, the petitioner was engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar. Under the impugned assessment orders, the turnover representing the value of gunny bags (packing material) in which the sugar manufactured by the petitioner was sold has been assessed to tax. The assessment orders are assailed on diverse grounds. The case of the petitioner is that sugar was exempt from payment of sales tax and it was a declared commodity under the provisions of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The additional excise duty is levied and collected, according to the rates specified in the Schedule. Further no quantity of sugar can be sold without obtaining a release order from the Directorate of Sugar, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of India and the price of levy sugar is fixed by the Central Government by means of Sugar Price Determination Orders issued for such year under section 23 (3) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is averred that only price of sugar was charged in effecting the sales. The contention of the petitioner is that the value of the gunny bags sold along with the sugar which was exempt from sales/trade tax, was not liable to tax, inasmuch as the petitioner had not charged anything for the gunny bags. 3. It was stated that in the sale of sugar, the gunny bags are necessary concomitants and the transfer in the gunny bags in favour of the purchaser of the contents is incidental or unavoidable and that such a transaction would be a composite and integrated sale of the gunny bags and the contents and the one is not divisible from the other and the transaction is understood by the seller and the purchaser, as the sale of the contents in those gunny bags. In other words, the gunny bags did not form part of the contract of sale and its value could not be brought to tax, nor the transactions could be termed as a sale within the meaning of the U. P. Trade Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, and therefore, the impugned assessments were not liable to be sustained. The maintaining of separate registers for gunny bags was only intended to facilitate computation of excise duty upon sugar, as the same is an excisable commodity, inasmuch as maintaining of such details cannot be treated to be separate transactions liable to tax under the U. P. Trade Tax Act or under the Central Sales Tax Act, and the view to the contrary taken by the assessing authority was patently illegal and, therefore, bad in law. Yet another contention of the petitioner was that at no time the sugar is kept loose and it is always packed in gunny bags before it is stored or is offered for sale, otherwise quality, grade and colour deteriorates. It is always sold in packed condition, and there was no contract either express or implied for the sale of gunny bags, when the petitioner sold the sugar manufactured by it. 4. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit at the admission stage, and the rejection of the writ petition is sought both on merits as well on the ground that the writ petition was not maintainable inasmuch as, the petitioner has an effective statutory alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned assessment orders under section 9 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and further in second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal under section 10 of that Act and thereafter by way of revision to this Court under section 11 of the said Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that there is a complete machinery provided both under the U. P. Trade Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act against the assessment orders where the petitioner can seek redressal of its grievances, if any. It was urged that the petitioner has been subjected to tax under the impugned assessment orders in view of the findings of fact recorded therein. It was urged that the petitioner has been subjected to tax under the impugned assessment orders in view of the findings of fact recorded therein. The case of the respondent is that there was an implied contract for the sale of gunny bags, inasmuch as the petitioner had imported gunny bags from the outside State to the value of Rs. 19,83,055 which were utilised for packing of the sugar and a composite price was charged for the sugar and the gunny bags in effecting the sale transactions. 5. In Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette Factory v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1966] 17 STC 624 (SC) the facts were that by a notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Government, sale or purchase of tobacco and all its products were exempted from sales tax. The revenue sought to assess the assessee in that case, the manufacturer of and dealer in cigarettes, on the turnover in respect of packing materials consisting of cardboard and dealwood. The case taken up by the assessee was that packing materials were not liable to tax. The Supreme Court in deciding the issue held as under " In order to constitute a sale it was necessary that there should be an agreement between the parties for the purpose of transferring title to goods, that it should be supported by money consideration and that as a result of the transaction property should actually pass in the goods. Unless all these elements are present there could be no sale. What the sales tax authorities had to do was to ask and answer the question whether the parties, having regard to the circumstances of the case, intended to sell or buy the packing materials or whether the subject-matter of the contracts of sale was only cigarettes, and packing materials did not form part of the bargain at all, but were used by the sellers as a convenient and cheap vehicle of transport. " 6. A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Taxes, Assam v. Prabhat Marketing Co. Ltd. [1967] 19 STC 84. The assessee in that case sold hydrogenated oil which was exempt from sales tax under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947. The question for consideration was whether the value of the containers in which hydrogenated oil was sold, could be brought to tax. Ltd. [1967] 19 STC 84. The assessee in that case sold hydrogenated oil which was exempt from sales tax under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947. The question for consideration was whether the value of the containers in which hydrogenated oil was sold, could be brought to tax. The Supreme Court observed that the value of the containers was assessable to sales tax under the Assam Sales Tax Act if there was an express or implied agreement for the sale of such containers and the mere fact that the price of the containers was not separately fixed was of no consequence to the assessment of sales tax. The question as to whether there was an agreement to sell packing material is a pure question of fact depending upon the circumstances found in each case. 7. We may also refer to another decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Sheel v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1989] 74 STC 379 where the Supreme Court has observed as under : " It is commonly accepted that a transaction of sale may consist of a sale of the product and a separate sale of the container housing the product with respective sale considerations for the product and the container separately; or it may consist of a sale of the product and a sale of the container but both sales being conceived of as integrated components of a single sale transaction; or, what may yet be a third case, it may consist of a sale of the product with the transfer of the container without any sale consideration therefor. The question in every case will be a question of fact as to what are the nature and ingredients of the sale. It is not right in law to pick on one ingredient only to the exclusion of the others and deduce from it the character of the transaction. For example, the circumstance that the price of the product and the price of the container are shown separately may be evidence that two separate transactions are envisaged, but that circumstance alone cannot be conclusive of the true character of the transaction. For example, the circumstance that the price of the product and the price of the container are shown separately may be evidence that two separate transactions are envisaged, but that circumstance alone cannot be conclusive of the true character of the transaction. It is not unknown that traders may, for the advantage of their trade, show what is essentially a single sale transaction of product and container, or a transaction of a sale of the product only with no consideration for the transfer of the container, as divisible into two separate transactions, one of sale of the product, and the other a sale of the container, with a distinct price shown against each. Similarly where a deposit is made by the purchaser with the dealer, the deposit may be pursuant to a transaction where there is no sale of the container and its return is contemplated, and in the event of its not being returned the security is liable to forfeiture. Alternatively, it may be a case where the container is sold and the deposit represents the consideration for the sale and in the event of the container being returned to the dealer the deposit is returned by way of consideration for the resale. In every case, the assessing authority is obliged to ascertain the true nature and character of the transaction upon a consideration of all the facts and circumstances pertaining to the transaction. That the problem almost always requires factual investigation into the nature and ingredients of the transaction has been repeatedly emphasised by this Court. " 8. It would be seen that the gist of the various judicial opinion in this respect is that to attract sales tax/trade tax, the packing materials should have been the subject-matter of any agreement to sell whether express or implied. Everything depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not possible to lay down any fixed formula or a proposition of law that whenever particular goods are sold in packing materials, the parties did not intend to sell and buy the packing materials also. 9. For the decision of the question canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, namely, whether the value of the gunny bags was taxable or not, one will have to go through several facts which may include terms and conditions of the agreement, if any. 9. For the decision of the question canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, namely, whether the value of the gunny bags was taxable or not, one will have to go through several facts which may include terms and conditions of the agreement, if any. The assessing authority in the impugned assessment orders have recorded a categorical finding that there was an implied agreement for the sale of gunny bags and the petitioner has charged a composite price in the sale transactions which was the price for sugar and gunny bags both. The petitioner was given a show cause notice before the impugned assessments were made. The petitioner had also filed the reply to the show cause notice and the assessments were made after considering the case of the petitioner. The reply given to the show cause notice has not been filed with the writ petition. In the impugned assessment orders, many of the contentions raised in this writ petition do not find mention and there is nothing on record to indicate whether such contentions were urged before the assessing authority. The question as to whether there was an agreement to sell gunny bags (packing materials) is essentially a question of fact. Likewise whether there was a sale of the packing material is a matter for inference that may be drawn from various circumstances in a given case. We find substance in the objection of the respondents that the petitioner must be relegated to the statutory alternative remedy that may be available to it under law. Whether the value of gunny bags is taxable or not depended upon the intention of the parties and what are ingredients of the contract express or implied. 10. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Sheel [1989] 74 STC 379 in every case it is for the assessing authority to ascertain the true nature and character of the transaction upon a consideration of all the facts and circumstances pertaining to the transaction. The decision to the controversy requires factual investigation into the nature and ingredient of the transaction. Certainly this exercise cannot be conveniently carried out in these proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India nor the controversy can be decided on the basis of the affidavits alone exchanged between the parties which may require other evidence and material also. 11. Certainly this exercise cannot be conveniently carried out in these proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India nor the controversy can be decided on the basis of the affidavits alone exchanged between the parties which may require other evidence and material also. 11. The grounds on which the impugned assessment orders are assailed in this writ petition and/or such other grounds as the petitioner may like to take can all be dealt with effectively by the appellate or other authorities constituted under the Act, and the petitioner can ventilate its grievances and substantiate its case before the said authorities. The remedy provided under the Act, in our opinion, is quite adequate and efficacious. We do not feel inclined to entertain this writ petition, particularly, when disputed questions of fact are involved. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it is averred that in similar circumstances the petitioner was assessed to sales tax on the value of gunny bags in respect of the assessment year 1987-88 both under the U. P. and Central Sales Tax Acts. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner denying these allegations. 12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy without entering into the merits of the contentions of the contending parties, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned assessment orders in appeal or otherwise, if so advised, before the appropriate forum. However, in case the petitioner prefers appeal (s) against the impugned assessment orders within 30 days from today, the same will be entertained by the concerned authority and they shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone. The stay order dated September 12, 1995 stands discharged. Petition dismissed. .