1991 (2) TMI 401

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to dispose of the assessments for the periods ending June 30, 1988, March 31, 1989 and March 31, 1990. 2.. The petitioner has challenged this order of transfer solely on the ground that the Commissioner should have given the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before the said order of transfer was made. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India [1957] 31 ITR 565 in which the validity of section 5(7-A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was challenged. The learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [1976] 102 ITR 281. 3.. In the first case the Supreme Court upheld the valid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....convenience or hardship that may be caused by the proposed order of transfer. The Supreme Court however struck down the order of transfer in that case on the ground of non-communication of the order to the assessee. 5.. On the other hand, the order of transfer is sought to be justified by Sri H.L. Dattu, learned Government Advocate relying on the powers conferred on the Commissioner under rule 59 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957. It is argued that the Commissioner has transferred the case to the first respondent after he was authorised by the Government to function as an assessing authority for purposes of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 also, by notification dated March 23, 1990 issued under section 3-B(3)(a) of the Karnataka Sales ....