TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th June, 2014 and the order, dated 14th July, 2014, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla, H.P., whereby the cases of the petitioners have been ordered to be transferred from DCIT, Circle Shimla to ACIT/DCIT Central Circle-I, Chandigarh, on the grounds taken in the memo of Writ Petitions. 2. Precisely, the case of the petitioners is that the respondent i.e. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla has, without any rhyme or reason, transferred their cases from Shimla Circle to Central Circle-I, Chandigarh, which is illegal and has affected and deprived the petitioners from effective hearing. Further, it is pleaded that they would not be in a position to contest/defend their cases. 3. Respondent has filed the reply(ies) and res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitions at the threshold stage? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons. 8. The writ petitioners have questioned the impugned show cause notices and the orders on the ground that these are unconstitutional, illegal, bad in law and have resulted in depriving the petitioners from contesting their cases conveniently at Shimla. 9. The question - whether the show cause notices and the orders impugned are bad in law, are liable to be quashed or otherwise and whether the writ petitions would lie - is to be determined after hearing the parties on merits. 10. For determining the preliminary objection, the rival contentions of the parties have to be tested on the principles laid down by the Apex Court. 11. The Apex Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ka & ors., (2005) 10 SCC 383 also made similar observations. It is profitable to reproduce paragraphs 7 and 8 hereunder: "7. As the factual scenario noted above goes to show specific challenge in the writ appeal was in respect of the direction given by learned Single Judge to grant occupancy rights to the respondents. That was the basic issue which was to be adjudicated by the Division Bench in the writ appeal. The basic issue, as noted above was whether the direction given by learned Single Judge could be maintained, when the matter was being remitted by learned Single Judge to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. In a given case there can be limited remand and giving finality to an issue, may be permissible. In the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redundant. 14. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in case Union of India vs. Ram Kumar Thakur, 2008 AIR SCW 7638, the Apex Court, while referring to its earlier decisions (supra), restated the same principle and held that mere implementation of the order cannot be a ground to dismiss the appeal or it cannot be said that the appeal has become infructuous. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 2 to 7 as under: "2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellants on the ground that the respondent had been reinstated in service pursuant to the judgment of the learned single Judge which was impugned in the writ appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the State Government only to comply with the directions given by the High Court. It was made during a period when the appeal against the judgment was pending in this Court. The fact that the State Government took steps to comply with the directions of the High Court cannot lead to the inference that the appeal by the Union of India has become infructuous." Above position was also noted in Union of India v. Narender Singh [2005(6) SCC 106]. 7. Above being the position the impugned order of the High Court cannot be maintained and is set aside. The writ appeal shall be heard by the High Court on merits about which we express no opinion. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs."....