Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr.R.Saravanakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Haja Naziruddin, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondents. 2. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.13559 of 2005 dated 25.04.2005. 3. The appellant had filed the said writ petition for quashing the demand notice dated 13. 2005. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by observing that the writ petitioner is required to move the appropriate authority. Thereafter, the present writ appeal was filed and the same was admitted and is pending for more than 2 1/2 years. 4. It is obvious that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The initial question therefor is whether the matter should be decided on merit by this court or the appellant should be forced to approach the appellate authority for exhausting the remedy available under the Act. 5. It is well accepted principle of discretion that a writ petition should not be ordinarily entertained when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available. However, there are many well known exceptions to such principles. When a matter can be decided on the basis of admitted facts and there is no requirement of investigation into any factual dispute and particularly when the dispute is only on pure question of law, it may not be always necessary for the High Court to force the party to avail the alternative remedy. More particularly, when the matter remains pending for several years in High Court, it would be unjust to drive the party to go before the appropriate authority. 6. The question raised in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal is relating to the levy of tax and penalty as contemplated in the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 7. Section 3 of the said Act relates to levy of tax which is extracted here under: “3. 7. Section 3 of the said Act relates to levy of tax which is extracted here under: “3. Levy of tax:- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall be levied and collected a tax on the entry of any motor vehicles into any local area for use or sale therein which is liable for registration, or for the assignment of a new registration mark, in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act No.59 of 1988). The rate of tax shall be at such rate or rates, not exceeding twenty per cent, as may be fixed by the Government, by notification, on the purchase value of the motor vehicles. Provided that in respect of any motor vehicle which was registered in any Union Territory or any other State under the law relating to motor vehicle:- (a)before the 10th September, 1996, no tax shall be levied and collected, if the owner of such vehicle applies for the assignment of a new registration mark in this State after a period of fifteen months from the date of its registration; (b)on or after 10th September, 1996, no tax shall be levied and collected, if the owner of such vehicle applies for the assignment of a new registration mark in this State after a period of eighteen months from the date of its registration. Explanation.- For the purpose of this proviso, the expression law relating to motor vehicle means the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the case may be. (2)The tax shall be payable by an importer in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed.” 8. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the tax on the entry of any motor vehicle is contemplated, when such entry is for use of the motor vehicle therein or sale of the motor vehicle therein. Moreover, it is also necessary to come to a conclusion that whether such a vehicle is liable for registration or for the assignment of a new registration mark in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). For the aforesaid purpose, one has to refer Sections 39 and 40 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act contemplates that no person shall drive any motor vehicle without appropriate certificate of registration. 10. For the aforesaid purpose, one has to refer Sections 39 and 40 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act contemplates that no person shall drive any motor vehicle without appropriate certificate of registration. 10. Section 40 of the said Act contemplates that every owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be registered by a registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept. 11. Section 47 of the Act contemplates that if a motor vehicle registered in one State is kept in another State, for a period exceeding one year, the owner of the vehicle has the duty to get it registered in the subsequent State within whose jurisdiction the vehicle is kept for the required period. 12. Section 49 of the said Act contemplates that if there is any change of residence or place of business, the owner of the motor vehicle is required to change the registration in such new State, where he has shifted his place of residence or business. 13. Under Section 49(2) of the said Act, if the owner fails to intimate his new address to the concerned registering authority, the registering authority may require the owner to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under Section 177 of the Act , such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under Sub-Section(4). 14. Under Section 177 of the Act, for the first violation, fine of Rs.100/- can be imposed and if subsequently violated, fine, not exceeding Rs.300/- can be imposed. 15. There is no dispute that in the present case, no action has been taken or even was contemplated under Section 47 read with Section 49 and 177 of the Act. On the other hand, for the first time when the owner of the vehicle himself intimated in 1997 seeking for change of registration, the authorities have levied tax under Section 3 of the Rules and also levied penalty. On the other hand, for the first time when the owner of the vehicle himself intimated in 1997 seeking for change of registration, the authorities have levied tax under Section 3 of the Rules and also levied penalty. Under Section 3 of the Rules proviso (a) it is evident that in respect of any motor vehicle which had been registered in any Union Territory before 10th September 1996, no tax shall be levied and collected, if the owner of such vehicle applies for the assignment of a new registration mark in the State of Tamil Nadu, after a period of 15 months from the date of its registration. 16. From the order of assessment itself, it is apparent that the vehicle was purchased in the year 1992 and was also registered in the Union Territory of Pondicherry in the said year. Thereafter, an application for change of registration was made in 1997. It is thus obvious that as per the proviso (a), no tax under Section 3 of the Rules was leviable. Since for applying the statutory provisions, there is no necessity of any disputed fact to be investigated and on the basis of admitted materials on record, the provision of law can be applied, we find there was no justification for the learned Single Judge to direct that the matter should be placed before the appropriate authority. More particular so, when the writ appeal was entertained and pending for more than 2 1/2 years and has remained pending. 17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the appeal and quash the impugned notice. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, WA.MP.No.1892 of 2005 is closed.