Efficacious statutory appeal bars writ interference, while limitation protection may still be granted for a timely appeal.

A writ challenge to rejection of a refund claim as premature was treated as unwarranted because the impugned order was appealable to the Collector (Appeals), making the statutory appellate remedy equally efficacious. The court therefore declined to bypass the prescribed remedy through writ jurisdiction. To prevent prejudice, it directed that if the appeal was filed by the stipulated date, no limitation objection would be raised.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order rejecting the refund claim as premature was liable to be entertained despite the availability of an appeal, and whether any protective direction was required regarding limitation for filing the appeal.

Analysis: The impugned order was appealable to the Collector (Appeals), making the statutory appellate remedy equally efficacious. In those circumstances, interference in writ jurisdiction was held unwarranted, particularly since the challenge was to a recent order and there was no reason to allow bypass of the prescribed remedy. To avoid prejudice to the petitioner, a direction was made that if an appeal was filed on or before the specified date, no limitation objection would be raised.

Outcome: The writ petition was dismissed, with protection granted against a limitation objection if the appeal was filed within the stipulated time.

---