Judgment A.M. Sapre, J. By filing this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 5.1.2006 (Annexure –C) passed by Commissioner of Taxes Assam (Guwahati). Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is an association of a trade registered under the provisions of Society Registration Act. Its members are the persons who are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of an item called “Aluminum conductors” (AAAC /ACSR). The question arose as to at what rate the item “Aluminum conductors” was liable to be taxed under the provisions of The Assam Value Added tax Act 2003 (for short hereinafter for brevity called “The Act”). In other words, there arose a dispute between the manufacturer of Aluminum conductors and taxing authority as to under which entry in the schedule appended to the Act, “Aluminum conductors” was liable to be taxed for payment of value added tax ( VAT ) and if so, at what rate ? In order to determine this question, the petitioner filed an application on 23.8.2005 (Annexure-A) under Section 105 of the Act to the Commissioner and sought its determination from him in accordance with the provisions of Section 105 ibid. According to the petitioner, the commodity “Aluminum conductors” was liable to be taxed at 4 % under entry 26 or 37 of Second Schedule. The Commissioner decided this issue by the impugned order dated 5.1.2006 (Annexure- C). He did not accept the contention of the petitioner that it was liable to be taxed at the rate of 4% and instead held that “Aluminum Conductors“ was covered by entry SL. 1 of fifth schedule appended to the Act and was accordingly taxable at the rate of 12.5.%. It is apposite to reproduce the entire impugned order in verbatim infra. Order Dated Dispur, the 5th January, 2006 No.CIS-16/2005/477: Assam Conductors” Manufacturer Association, Guwahati has filed an application in Form-76 of the Assam Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 and sought determination of rates of tax on the item “Aluminum Conductors” under Section 105 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with rule 56 of the Assam Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 along with the required application fee. The application is examined and found in order. Hence admitted. The case was posted for hearing on 07.10.2005. The application is examined and found in order. Hence admitted. The case was posted for hearing on 07.10.2005. Shri J.P. Khaitan and Promod Agarwal appeared on behalf of the part. It was contended by the dealer that the item is covered by entry at Sl. No.26 of Part-A of Second Schedule appended to the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The issue raised by the petitioner has been examined with reference to the provisions of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the rules framed thereunder and the ruling is given as under: “Aluminum Conductor” is an unspecified item and cannot be treated as extrusion of Aluminum. Hence it is covered by entry at Sl. No.1 of Fifth Schedule appended to the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Accordingly, it is taxable at the rate of 12.5%. Sd/- B. Kalyan Chakraborty Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Guwahati.” It is against this order; the petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this writ petition. Notice was served on the respondents. They are also represented. Heard Dr. Ashok Saraf, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. ML Gope, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Finance for respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the writ petition and while quashing the impugned order, remand the case to the commissioner for deciding the application filed by the writ petitioner afresh on merit keeping in view our observations made infra. Section 105, which is relevant for disposal of the writ petition, reads as under:- “105. Section 105, which is relevant for disposal of the writ petition, reads as under:- “105. Determination of disputed questions – (1) If any question arises, otherwise than in a proceedings pending before an Appellate Authority or an Appellate Tribunal or a Court, whether or not, - (a) any person or association of persons, society, club, firm, company, corporation, undertaking or Government Department is a dealer; or (b) any transaction is a sale or purchase and, if so, the sale or purchase price, as the case may be, therefor: or (c) any particular dealer is required to obtain registration; or (d) any particular goods purchased or sold by a registered dealer are covered by his certificate of registration; or (e) any tax is payable in respect of any particular sale or purchase and, if so, the point at which tax is leviable and the rate thereof: or (f) any goods is taxable and, if taxable, the point at which and the schedule under which it is taxable and the rate thereof; or (g) any goods or classes of goods should be specified in the certificate or registration issued under this Act; or (h) any transaction, contract or agreement or arrangement is works contract or an operating lease; or (i) any particular thing done to any goods amounts to or results in the manufacture of goods within the meaning of that terms; or (j) any set-off can be claimed on any particular transaction of purchase and if it can be claimed, what are the conditions and restrictions subject to which such set-off can be claimed; the Commissioner shall make an order determining such question: Provided that, before giving such decision, the Commissioner may, in his discretion, ask an officer appointed to assist him to make such inquiries as he considers necessary for the decision of the question. (2) Any registered dealer or any association of trade, commerce, industry may apply in the prescribed form and manner to the Commissioner for determination of such question and the Commissioner shall, after giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard, make an order determining such question. (3) No question which arises from an order already passed, in the case of an applicant, by any authority under this Act or the Tribunal, shall be entertained for determination under this section. (3) No question which arises from an order already passed, in the case of an applicant, by any authority under this Act or the Tribunal, shall be entertained for determination under this section. (4) No decision of the Commissioner under this section shall affect the validity or operation of any order passed earlier by any Prescribed Authority, Appellate Authority, Appellate Tribunal or any Court. (5) Subject to other provision of this Act, decision given by the Commissioner under this section shall be final and binding on the applicant, and the Prescribed Authority. (6) The Commissioner, for reasons to be recorded in writing may, on his own motion review an order passed by him under this section and pass such order thereon as he thinks just and proper. The Commissioner may direct that the order of review shall not affect the liability of the person in whose case the review is made in respect of any sale or purchase effected prior to the review and may likewise if the circumstances so warrant direct accordingly in respect of any other person similarly situated: Provided that no order shall be passed under this sub-section unless the dealer or the person in whose case the order is proposed to be passed has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided further that, before initiating any action under this sub-section, the Commissioner shall obtain prior permission of the Government.” Mere perusal of section 105 and specially sub section 2 read with proviso to sub section (1) would indicate that Commissioner is invested with quasi judicial powers to determine the question/s specified in sub section (a) to (j). A right to raise the questions for its determination is given to those specified in Sub Section (2). This sub-section equally cast a duty on the Commissioner to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person who has applied for determination. Similarly, proviso to sub section (1) empowers the Commissioner to hold an inquiry at his discretion and while holding such inquiry, he is empowered to take assistance of an officer appointed for the purpose to enable him to decide the question. Similarly, proviso to sub section (1) empowers the Commissioner to hold an inquiry at his discretion and while holding such inquiry, he is empowered to take assistance of an officer appointed for the purpose to enable him to decide the question. It must therefore appear from the proceedings that Commissioner has held an inquiry in letter and spirit, collected relevant material by allowing an opportunity to the person to participate in the inquiry and file such material, sought assistance of officer concern, if considers it necessary and then passed the reasoned order justifying his decision on the question. In any event, the decision rendered by the Commissioner must be supported with the reasons which must be based on material filed in the inquiry. Such order, in our view, would show that Commissioner has applied his mind by exercising judicial discretion conferred on him by Section 105 ibid. Such decision once rendered would bind the stakeholders unless reviewed by the Commissioner or set aside by the High Court under Article 226/227 of Constitution. Coming now to the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that Commissioner did not keep these requirements in mind while passing the impugned order, in as much as, he neither held any inquiry nor sought any assistance from any officer and nor assigned his reasons for coming to a conclusion. In other words, the impugned decision did not appear to have been rendered after following the procedure prescribed in Section 105 because it did not contain any reason/justification as to how and on what basis and material, the Commissioner could come to a conclusion that the “Aluminum Conductor“ was taxable at the rate of 12%. The so-called reason assigned cannot be said to be reasons much less justifiable to sustain the order. We cannot uphold the impugned order. In the light of foregoing discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.1.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Guwahati is quashed by issuance of writ of certiorari. The case is remanded to the Commissioner for deciding the application filed by the writ petitioner afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in mind our observations. Needless to observe, the Commissioner will afford opportunity to petitioner to file material in support of their case and would also hear them in the inquiry. The case is remanded to the Commissioner for deciding the application filed by the writ petitioner afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in mind our observations. Needless to observe, the Commissioner will afford opportunity to petitioner to file material in support of their case and would also hear them in the inquiry. We, however, make it clear that we have not applied our mind to the merits of the question raised by the petitioner and hence the Commissioner would not be influenced by our decision while deciding the question on merits and will pass the order strictly in accordance with law on the basis of material filed by the parties concern in the inquiry. Let the matter be decided by the Commissioner within 6 months from the date of production of this order before him. It be done within two weeks from the date of this order by the parties. No cost.