ORDER S. R. NAYAK, J. In these two writ petitions the basic question that arises for decision is "whether the goods purchased by the petitioner fall within the entry 2(xiii) or entry 2-A of Third Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act')." W.P. No. 15507 of 1993 is filed by the petitioner praying for writ of mandamus declaring the collection of sales tax by the Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, Visakhapatnam, second respondent herein and the Controller of Stores, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Calcutta, third respondent herein, on the iron scrap sold by them to the petitioner through public auctions as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to them to refund the amount of Rs. 11,12,393 collected by them in February and March, 1993 towards the sales tax; whereas in W.P. No. 13301 of 2001, the petitioner sought for mandamus restraining the Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam, the respondent, from enforcing the demand of Rs. 88,265 levied for the assessment year 1993-94 by his order dated October 25, 2000 and to adjust same against sales tax of Rs. 11,12,393 collected from the petitioner through railways, the refund of which is claimed in the first writ petition referred to above. In the first writ petition, the respondents 2 and 3, the authorities of railways, as directed by the respondents 5 and 6 and treating the goods purchased by the petitioner as exigible to tax at the sale point, collected the sales tax of Rs. 11,12,393. In the second writ petition, the respondent-Commercial Tax Officer treating the purchased goods, for the assessment year 1993-94 as exigible in the hands of the petitioner at the purchase point and as the one falling under entry 2-A of the Third Schedule, assessed the tax in the hands of the petitioner at Rs. 88,265 vide his assessment order dated October 25, 2000. Opposing the first petition, on behalf of the respondent-authorities, a counter-affidavit is filed contending that the goods purchased by the petitioner from the railways squarely fall under entry 2(xiii) of the Third Schedule and/or general goods, and therefore, those goods are liable to be taxed at the first sale point. 88,265 vide his assessment order dated October 25, 2000. Opposing the first petition, on behalf of the respondent-authorities, a counter-affidavit is filed contending that the goods purchased by the petitioner from the railways squarely fall under entry 2(xiii) of the Third Schedule and/or general goods, and therefore, those goods are liable to be taxed at the first sale point. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties for considerable time, what we find is that there is a serious factual controversy whether the goods purchased by the petitioner from the railways fall under entry 2(xiii)/General goods or entry 2-A of the Third Schedule of the Act. The question whether tax is liable to be levied at the hands of the first sale or on the last purchase, depends upon the resolution of the above factual controversy. We see that till date no adjudicatory authority under the Act or any other adjudication forum has recorded any finding on this factual controversy. It is trite that this factual controversy cannot be taken up by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India and decided the same on the basis of affidavits and counter-affidavits only. Therefore, in the peculiar fact situation of this case, we think it appropriate to allow the assessing authority under the Act to decide the above factual question in the first instance. Of course, it is quite open for the petitioner to put forth its plea that the goods purchased by it actually fall under entry 2-A and not under entry 2(xiii). Further, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, it has become necessary to us to invoke our power of superintendence under article 227 of the Constitution to quash the assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam, dated October 25, 2000 for the assessment year 1993-94, though that assessment order as such is not assailed before us specifically. In the result, without expressing any opinion on the factual controversy, we dispose of these writ petitions quashing the assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer in W.P. No. 13301 of 2001, dated October 25, 2000 for the assessment year 1993-94 and direct the concerned assessing authority under the APGST Act to determine the assessability of the turnovers in question permitting the petitioner to raise the questions raised in these writ petitions. The assessing authority is directed to decide the factual plea taken by the petitioner-assessee in the first instance and on the basis of the finding to determine the tax liability and pass appropriate orders for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. It is also relevant to direct that in the event of the petitioner-assessee succeeding in his plea that the goods purchased by it from the railways fall under entry 2-A of the Third Schedule of the Act, the tax already collected by the railways and transmitted to the Commercial Tax Department is required to be adjusted or refunded to the petitioner, as the case may be. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kurupam Market Circle, Visakhapatnam, is directed to comply with this direction within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. Petitions disposed of accordingly.