WELLTRANS LOGISTICS INDIA (P) LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME & ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petitions. The Court noted that the matter had been pending since May 2026 and had been listed on multiple occasions. On the current date, no one appeared for the petitioner. The Court also took into consideration the submissions made by the revenue that the petitioner had alternative statutory remedies available. In one instance, an appeal was already filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and in another, the petitioner could approach the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against a draft assessment order. The High Court's reasoning was based on the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an adequate alternative remedy exists. All pending applications were also disposed of.
What were the facts?
The petitioners, M/s Welltrans Logistics India (P) Ltd., filed two writ petitions (W.P.(C) 7040/2026 and W.P.(C) 7127/2026) before the Delhi High Court. The matters have been pending since May 2026 and listed on multiple occasions. On the current date, October 14, 2026, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The respondents, represented by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., submitted that in one of the cases, the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on April 19, 2025. In the other case, which challenged a draft assessment order, the petitioner had a statutory remedy to approach the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The respondents argued that due to the availability of alternative remedies, the writ petitions should not be entertained.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Delhi High Court should entertain writ petitions filed by the petitioner when alternative statutory remedies are available, as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the assessee as no one appeared on their behalf. The assessee had filed writ petitions challenging certain income tax orders/actions. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy available. Specifically, in one case, an appeal has already been preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the other case, which pertains to a draft assessment order, the petitioner has a statutory remedy to approach the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Therefore, the revenue argued that the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
$~6 & 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010230522026 + W.P.(C) 7040/2026 CM APPL. 34535/2026 CM APPL. 34536/2026 # CNR No. DLHC010231402026 + W.P.(C) 7127/2026 CM APPL. 34904/2026 CM APPL. 34905/2026 M/S WELLTRANS LOGISTICS INDIA (P) LTD. .....Petitioner Through: None. versus PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Anant Mann, JSC & Mr. Pratyaksh Gupta, JSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY O R D E R %
14.10.2026 1. This matter is pending since May 2026 and has been listed on multiple occasions, (on 20.05.2026, 05.08.2026, 12.08.2026, 31.08.2026, 23.09.2026 and 14.10.2026). 2. Today, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 3. It is to be noted that on all previous occasions, either learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear or if he appeared, an adjournment was sought. 4. Mr. Anant Mann, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents, submitted that in one of these cases (W.P.(C) 7127/2026), the petitioner/assessee has already preferred an appeal before the Commissioner This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/10/2026 at 12:15:27
of Income Tax (Appeals) on 19.04.2025, and in the other case, which impugns a draft assessment order, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of approaching the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 5. He submitted that since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, this Court should not entertain these writ petitions. 6. In view of what we have noticed hereinabove, we refuse to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. 7. All pending applications stand disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J. ADITI CHOUDHARY, J. OCTOBER 14, 2026/sid This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/10/2026 at 12:15:27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahadev Malik vs. Additional Commissioner, BhubaneswarOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
- Dillip Kumar Sethy vs. The Deputy Commissioner, CGST And Central ExciseOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
- Sri. R. Veerabhadrappa vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 6 Nov 2026
- Shaista Praween vs. The Assistant Commissoner Of GST And Central Excise, RourkelaOrissa · 6 Nov 2026
- Dipankar Borgohain vs. The Union Of INDIA And 7 OrsGauhati · 5 Nov 2026
