JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:- By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for the grant of following reliefs : It is therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why: (a) It be not declared that the transaction involved/envisaged in the contract agreement bearing No. BDA/ONSG/MM/DS/MWD-SDMM/05/2012-13/BN6YC12004/9010018111 dated 28-06-2013 entered into by and between the petitioner and the proforma respondent No. 4 cannot be construed as a transfer of right to use goods so as to render the transactions exigible to tax under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act 2004; and (b) as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus be not issued directing the respondents authorities to cancel, recall or otherwise forbear from giving effect to the instruction bearing No. F.16051578083/Ch-V/2005/11834-36 dated 28th November, 2008 and memorandum No. F.1-7(6)-Tax/2002 dated 25/30th June 2005 in respect of contract bearing No. BDA/ONSH/MM/DS/MWD-SDMM/05/201213/BN6YC 12004/9010018111 dated 28.06.2013 entered into by and between the petitioner and the proforma respondent No. 4; and (c) as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus be not issued directing the proforma respondent No. 4 not to deduct tax at source form the bills of the petitioner under the provisions of the Tripura Value Added Tax, 2004 in respect of the contract bearing No. BDA/ONSG/MM/DS/MWD-SDMM/05/2012-13/BN6YC12004/9010018111 dated 28-06-2013; and (d) as to why a writ in the nature of Certiorari be not issued quashing and setting aside the impugned instruction bearing No. F.16051578083/Ch-V/2005/11834-36 dated 28th November, 2008 and memorandum No. F.1-7(6)-Tax/2002 dated 25/30th June 2005 in respect of contract bearing No. BDA/ONSG/MM/DS/MWD-SDMM/05/2012-13/BN6YC12004/9010018111 dated 28-06-2013 entered into by and between the petitioner and the proforma respondent No. 4; And upon cause or causes being shown and after hearing the parties be please to make the rule absolute and/or pass such orders as Your Lordships shall deem fit and proper. 2. At this stage we are not going into the rival contentions of the parties in view of the order which we intend to pass. The main issue is whether the transaction involved/envisaged in the contract agreement bearing No. BDA/ONSG/MM/DS/MWD-SDMM/05/201213/BN6YC12004/9010018111 dated 28-06-2013 amounts to a sale within the meaning of the Tripura Value Added Tax or not. This question may be a mixed question of law and fact but it cannot be decided initially in writ proceedings. The main issue is whether the transaction involved/envisaged in the contract agreement bearing No. BDA/ONSG/MM/DS/MWD-SDMM/05/201213/BN6YC12004/9010018111 dated 28-06-2013 amounts to a sale within the meaning of the Tripura Value Added Tax or not. This question may be a mixed question of law and fact but it cannot be decided initially in writ proceedings. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner should first approach the revenue authorities for appropriate relief. 3. Mr. Sahewala, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, contends that the taxing authority has already made up its mind as is evident by the order, dated 28.11.2008, passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-V, Agartala. This order was passed in the year 2008 and there is no material on record to show that the petitioner approached any authority against such order. We, therefore, without going into the merits of the case dispose of the petition at this stage with the following directions: (i) That the petitioner may approach the Commission of Taxes along with a copy of this order and put its case before the Commissioner of Taxes. The said authority within 6(six) weeks of the representation of the petitioner, after giving hearing to the petitioner in person and/or through counsel, shall decide the issue as to whether the transaction in question amounts to a sale or not. (ii) Obviously, while deciding this issue the Commissioner shall follow the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan, [ (1993) 1 SCC 364 ] and by this Court in Biplab Kr. Ghosh Vs. Union of India, [(2014) 1 TLR 245]. In case the decision goes against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court. The Writ Petition is disposed of.