JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Special leave granted. 2. The contentions urged for the petitioners before the High Court were on two aspects. The first was whether the industrial alcohol manufactured by the appellants and subsequently, used as raw-material for the processing of certain organic chemicals, involved an element of sale attracting tax when industrial alcohol was put to use in the manufacture of the end-product. The second was whether the industrial alcohol which was drawn from two sources, namely, I from appellants' own, manufacture for what appellants call `captive-consumption' and from purchases by them from the market, was capable of distinctive identification and quantification or whether the question of such apportionment raises disputed questions of fact such as would not be resolved in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. We may refer to the second aspect first. The High Court observed : "It cannot be gainsaid that the quantification and apportionment of the industrial alcohol manufactured and purchased by the petitioner for consumption, upon which depends the levy and collection of purchase tax, is purely a matter of fact to be decided upon evidence led by the parties. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in exercise of its special and extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction. Such questions can better be adjudicated by the authorities, appointed under the Act and the Rules and and when raised before them." It is pointed out by the appellants that the bifurcation and separate identity of these two sources and the quantum involved in each are borne out by records and that there is no controversy whatsoever of any kind on that score. Appellants do not dispute the liability respecting the purchases from the market. Appellants say that they rely upon the undisputed records of Government for the distinct identities of the quantum involved in these two sources. 4. So far as the first contention is concerned, the High Court noticed the contention thus : "....In other words, the contention is that there being no element of purchase involved in the consumption of industrial alcohol manufactured by the company the provisions of the U.P. Sales of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and alcohol Taxation Act, 1939 [hereinafter called the Act] and the Rules made thereunder [thereinafter referred to as the Rules], are not attracted. No purchase tax, therefore, can be levied upon and collected from the company on the industrial alcohol manufactured and consumed by it." And observed : "To be precise, the question as to whether there is any element of purchase involved or not can be gone into by the authorities under Rules 15, 16 and 17 of the Rules. Thereafter, the matter may be investigated in appeal and revision under Section 16 read with Rule 20 of the Rules." It is submitted for the appellants that the question whether the raw-material manufactured by the appellants for captive consumption and actually so used by them involves an element of sale or transfer attracting the levy is a pure question of law to be decided on undisputed facts which are jurisdictional and collateral in nature, and that the High Court could not, unless there were other compelling reasons so to do, refuse to examine the matter. 5. It appears to us that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was not justified in declining to decide the question it is urged for the appellants that in another case involving a similar question, the High Court had indeed, entertained a petition under Article 226. 6. The order of the High Court under appeal is set aside and the writ petition remitted to the High Court for a disposal afresh on the merits. The parties are at liberty to move the High Court for such interlocutory orders as may become necessary in the interests of justice. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.