M/S WELLTRANS LOGISTICS INDIA (P) LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL CHIECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/7127/2026HC DelhiDLHC01023140202614 October 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The 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 submission by the revenue that the petitioner had alternative statutory remedies available. In one case, an appeal had already been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and in the other, the petitioner could approach the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the draft assessment order. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised when efficacious alternative remedies are available to the assessee, especially when the assessee has either availed them or has the option to do so. The petitions were dismissed on this ground.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, M/s Welltrans Logistics India (P) Ltd., filed two writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. The petitions have been pending since May 2026 and listed multiple times. On the current date, October 14, 2026, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. On previous occasions, either the petitioner's counsel did not appear or sought adjournments. The respondents' counsel submitted that in one case, W.P.(C) 7127/2026, 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 of approaching the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The respondents argued that due to the availability of alternative remedies, the High Court should not entertain the writ petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions when the petitioner has alternative statutory remedies available, specifically an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and approaching the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the petitioner had already availed an alternative remedy by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in one case. In the other case, which concerned a draft assessment order, the petitioner had a statutory remedy to approach the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Therefore, the revenue argued that the writ petitions should not be entertained by the High Court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 7040/2026
W.P.(C) 7127/2026

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 12:16:45

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 12:16:45

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →