Transfer jurisdiction and pecuniary limits upheld; Article 226 relief refused after the assessee took advantage of the transfer.

Transfer powers confined to pending cases cannot be stretched into an omnibus shift of all present and future matters, although the pending assessment proceedings could validly move to the second Sales Tax Officer. Jurisdiction under the Sales Tax Rules depended on the Commissioner's administrative allocation and the applicable pecuniary limit, not on the assessee's own return; the assessed turnover fell within the second officer's assigned range, so the assessments were valid. Discretionary relief under Article 226 was refused because the assessee had sought and benefited from the transfer before later challenging it, making the petition inequitable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Commissioner could validly transfer the assessee's pending assessment proceedings from one Sales Tax Officer to another under rule 46; (ii) whether the assessing officer had jurisdiction to complete the assessments for the relevant years on the basis of the pecuniary limits fixed under rule 3(2); and (iii) whether relief under Article 226 should be denied on account of the petitioner's conduct and availability of other remedies.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner could validly transfer the assessee's pending assessment proceedings from one Sales Tax Officer to another under rule 46.

Analysis: The transfer application was made by the assessee because he apprehended prejudice from the original assessing officer and sought transfer of his case for all purposes and under all circumstances. The correspondence showed that the assessee himself understood the order to have shifted the whole assessment file to the new officer and accepted that position until the demand was raised. Rule 46 empowered the Commissioner to transfer any case or class of cases pending before one Sales Tax Officer to another, but the rule did not support an omnibus transfer of non-pending matters. On the facts, the transfer could support the then pending proceedings, but not a general order extending beyond pending cases.

Conclusion: The transfer order was not valid to the extent it purported to operate as a general omnibus transfer of all present and future matters, though the pending proceedings could be transferred.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessing officer had jurisdiction to complete the assessments for the relevant years on the basis of the pecuniary limits fixed under rule 3(2).

Analysis: Under the scheme of the Sales Tax Rules, the Commissioner could determine the respective jurisdiction of Sales Tax Officers within a circle, and the order fixing pecuniary limits made the new officer competent to deal with cases where the taxable turnover exceeded the prescribed limit. The assessee's contention that jurisdiction depended on the turnover shown in the return was rejected, as jurisdiction could not be made to depend on the assessee's own statement. The assessed turnover for the years in question exceeded the monetary limit fixed for the first officer and fell within the jurisdiction assigned to the second officer.

Conclusion: The assessing officer had jurisdiction to complete the assessments for the relevant years.

Issue (iii): Whether relief under Article 226 should be denied on account of the petitioner's conduct and availability of other remedies.

Analysis: The assessee first sought transfer on the ground of prejudice, obtained the benefit of that transfer, and then questioned the very officer to whom the matter had been moved only after the assessments were made and demand was issued. This conduct showed lack of good faith and made the petitioner's claim for discretionary relief unmeritorious. In view of that conduct, the Court also treated it as unnecessary to decide the alternative remedy objection.

Conclusion: Relief under Article 226 was declined in the exercise of discretion.

Final Conclusion: The assessments were not struck down and the writ petitions failed on merits, leaving the tax demands undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer power confined to pending cases cannot justify an omnibus transfer beyond its terms, but jurisdiction fixed by a valid administrative allocation remains effective and cannot be defeated by the assessee's return or by subsequent objection raised after taking advantage of the transfer.

---