A.S. VENKATACHALAMOORTHY, J.

Sri Palani Dhandayuthapani Devasthanam represented by its Executive Officer filed W.P. No. 5752 of 1991 to 5754 of 1991 praying the Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the assessment orders made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Palani Circle II, Palani, for the year 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 invoking the Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries in Hotels and Lodging Houses Act, 1981 (hereinafter will be referred to as "the Act") and imposing a tax and penalty to the tune of Rs. 13, 115, Rs. 16, 205 and Rs. 15, 444 respectively and to further direct the respondent to forbear him from invoking the provisions of the said Act in so far as the appellant is concerned.

The said writ petition was resisted by the respondent on various grounds. The learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the same on the ground that the remedy sought for in the writ petition by way of writ is premature and further the petitioner has an alternate remedy under the Act by way of an appeal to the appellate authority.

Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

It may be straightaway mentioned that both the reasons given by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and which should mean this Court has to dispose of the writ appeals on the merits. The first ground mentioned by the learned single Judge is that the writ petitions are premature. A reading of the assessment orders would clearly show that the respondent finally decided after considering the objections to impose a tax and penalty as mentioned earlier. Of course, the orders mention that the demand notice will be issued accordingly. It can be noticed from the first page of the respective assessment orders, it is mentioned that as against the said assessment order an appeal would lie to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai North. Hence, it cannot be said that the writ is premature. The second reasoning given by the learned single Judge for dismissing the writ petition is that as against the assessment order, there is a right of appeal under section 10 of the Act to the appellate authority and as the effective alternate remedy not having been exhausted, the writ petitions cannot be entertained. Here again, it has to be pointed out that the dismissal of writ petitions on the availability of alternate remedy should be at the admission stage and not at the stage of final disposal. In this case, the writ petitions were filed in the year 1991 and the same were dismissed by the learned single Judge in the year 1998. That apart, the question involved for determination is of legal nature and certain facts alleged by the appellant/writ petitioner with regard to its activities have not been controverted by the respondent. Inasmuch as the settled legal position is that the court can accept uncontroverted facts put forward by the petitioner as true (Naseem Bano v. State of U.P.) there can be no hurdle for this Court to consider on the merits and dispose of these writ appeals.The case of the appellant is that the temple is an ancient one and is thronged by the devotees from different parts of the country. The petitioner provides minimum amenities for the devotees for poojas, for celebrating marriages and also to undergo penances. The appellant gets funds from the devotees by way of voluntary contributions, from hundi collections and also from the income from the agricultural lands and coconut thopes, etc. The temple has choultries either built voluntarily by the devotees or constructed out of the temple funds. The devotees, who come in large numbers found it difficult for accommodation even for temporary stay and now these choultries provide them necessary accommodation.

The further case of the appellant is that the appellant being a religious institution, its financial affairs are managed by an Executive Officer appointed under section 45 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment