Jharkhand High Court declines writ where statutory appeal to tribunal is available

Background of the dispute

In CJ Darcl Logistics Limited Vs Union of India, the Jharkhand High Court was called upon to decide whether a writ petition should be entertained when a statutory appellate remedy before the tribunal was available, but the tribunal was not fully functional due to vacancies.

The assessee approached the High Court under writ jurisdiction challenging an order in its case. A refund had already been sanctioned in its favour; the surviving dispute related only to the assessee’s entitlement to interest on that refund. Instead of availing the statutory appeal mechanism, the assessee invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, primarily on the ground that the appellate tribunal was not effectively functioning as judicial hearings had not commenced.

Status of the appellate tribunal

During the hearing, the Court referred to its earlier order dated 28th January, 2026, under which clarification had been sought regarding the functioning of the appellate tribunal.

The respondents informed the Court that:

  • The appellate tribunal was accepting filing of appeals;
  • However, judicial hearings had not yet begun as several posts were still vacant;
  • The competent authorities were in the process of filling up the vacancies so that the tribunal could become fully operational in due course.

The Court recorded these factual submissions and noted that, undisputedly, the impugned order in the assessee’s case was appealable before the tribunal under the relevant statute.

The central question was whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction when:

  1. A statutory appellate remedy before the tribunal existed; and
  2. The tribunal, though not holding hearings yet, was accepting appeals; and
  3. The issue in dispute was limited to interest on an already allowed refund, which did not trigger any pre-deposit requirement.

The assessee argued that directing it to file a statutory appeal would cause further delay because:

  • It had already spent considerable time in litigation;
  • The tribunal was not yet conducting regular hearings;
  • In these circumstances, relegating it to the appellate remedy would be unfair and burdensome.

Court’s view on alternate remedy

The Jharkhand High Court emphatically rejected the assessee’s plea to bypass the statutory remedy. The Bench reiterated the settled principle that:

Availability of an effective statutory appellate remedy generally bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances.

In the present case:

  • The order under challenge was clearly appealable before the tribunal;
  • There was no requirement of any pre-deposit, as the dispute was confined to interest on refund and not the principal tax demand;
  • The tribunal was accepting appeals, even though final hearings were yet to commence.

On this basis, the Court concluded that there was no legal justification to entertain the writ petition.

Rejection of “delay in litigation” as a ground

The assessee’s primary contention was that it had already devoted a substantial amount of time in litigation and should, therefore, not be compelled to go through the statutory appellate process.