Pure questions of law can be heard in writ jurisdiction despite alternative remedies, and merits must be decided.

Pure questions of law arising from undisputed facts may be examined in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding an alternative remedy. The Court treated the scope of exemption for transfer of a business, the State's territorial power to levy VAT on telecommunication towers located outside the State, and the authority to make a composite assessment without a statutory bifurcation mechanism as legal issues requiring merits-based consideration. The High Court's refusal to entertain the writ petitions solely on alternative-remedy grounds was set aside, and the matters were remitted for decision on those questions of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether transfer of one of the businesses as the whole of that business qualified for exemption under Explanation III to Section 2(41) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006; (ii) Whether the State had jurisdiction to levy VAT on telecommunication towers located outside the State even if treated as goods; (iii) Whether the assessing authority had jurisdiction to make a composite assessment where part of the towers were within the State and part outside the State, and whether the Act contained any provision for bifurcation.

Issue (i): Whether transfer of one of the businesses as the whole of that business qualified for exemption under Explanation III to Section 2(41) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: The question turned on the proper scope of the statutory exemption and on the legal character of the transfer. The issue was treated as a pure question of law on an undisputed factual foundation, with the relevant transactions and documents not in dispute.

Conclusion: The issue required adjudication on merits by the High Court and could not be rejected merely on the ground of alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the State had jurisdiction to levy VAT on telecommunication towers located outside the State even if treated as goods.

Analysis: The controversy raised a jurisdictional question concerning the territorial reach of the tax levy. The Court held that the issue was a pure question of law arising from undisputed facts and therefore called for consideration on merits.

Conclusion: The issue had to be examined by the High Court on merits.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessing authority had jurisdiction to make a composite assessment where part of the towers were within the State and part outside the State, and whether the Act contained any provision for bifurcation.

Analysis: The question concerned the authority of the assessing officer to undertake a composite assessment and the existence of any statutory mechanism for bifurcation. As the factual matrix was not in dispute and the question was purely legal, the High Court ought to have addressed it directly.

Conclusion: The issue required adjudication on merits by the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's refusal to entertain the writ petitions on the ground of alternative remedy was set aside, and the matters were remitted for decision on the pure questions of law raised.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition may be entertained notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy where the dispute raises pure questions of law on undisputed facts, and such issues must be decided on merits rather than declined on the threshold.

---