Writ jurisdiction and alternative remedy: constitutional scrutiny of 'transfer of the right to use goods' required merits-based consideration.

A constitutional issue arose on the scope of "transfer of the right to use any goods" under Article 366(29A)(d) and the resulting power to levy sales tax on the transactions assessed. The availability of an appellate remedy under the sales tax law did not, on these facts, justify declining writ jurisdiction where the petitions raised a merits-based challenge to taxability. The writ petitions should therefore have been entertained and decided on merits rather than rejected solely for alternative remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging sales tax assessments, which involved the interpretation of Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India and the taxability of transactions said to involve transfer of the right to use goods, should have been entertained despite the availability of an appellate remedy under the sales tax law.

Analysis: The dispute raised a constitutional question on the scope of the expression "transfer of the right to use any goods" and the consequent competence to levy sales tax on the transactions assessed. In such a case, the existence of an alternative statutory appeal did not justify refusal to examine the writ petitions on merits.

Conclusion: The writ petitions ought to have been entertained and decided on merits instead of being declined on the ground of alternative remedy.

---