Gauhati High Court
Rathi And Co. And Ramesh And Co. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)190CTR(GAU)221, (2004)3GLR160, [2004]267ITR295(GAUHATI)
JUDGMENT
B.K. Sharma J.
1. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the legality and validity of the order dated November 6, 2003, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Guwahati-II, Guwahati, transferring the income-tax and wealth-tax cases of the petitioners as mentioned in the schedule to the order from the Assessing Officers of Guwahati to the Assessing Officer in Kolkata. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both the writ petitions pertaining to the same order of challenge on the very same grounds and as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions have been heard together for decision and disposal. Learned counsel for the parties also agreed for disposal of the writ petitions at the motion stage itself after advancing their elaborate arguments and on production of the records by learned standing counsel, Income-tax Department.
2. Adverting to the facts of the case, the petitioners are individual partnership firms carrying on the business of supply of and trading in food grains. Their respective registered offices are situated in Guwahati. They are income-tax assessees. There are four partners each relating to their respective firms. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the partners of the petitioners partnership firms have their separate business interest/ventures in the form of sole proprietorship/partnership which are totally unconnected with the affairs and the business of the petitioners.
3. On March 12, 2003, the Income-tax Department conducted a survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the business premises, and godowns of the petitioners. Various books of account and documents were impounded during the said survey along with stock of food grains which were duly inventoried and copies of such inventories were duly furnished to the petitioners. The Income-tax Department also conducted search and seizure operations in the residential premises of the partners at Silliguri, Mirik and Ningalia in the State of West Bengal and at Kanpur in the State of U. P. and in Guwahati. Several documents and books of account were seized from the business/residential premises of the partners of the petitioners which according to them are totally unconnected with the business and affairs of the petitioners and that such search and seizure operations relating to the said partners are solely in connection with the individual business of the said partners totally unconnected with the business of the petitioners.
4. The petitioners wrote to the income-tax authority for release of books of account/documents which were impounded in the course of the survey conducted on March 12, 2003, under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, In the said letters, the petitioners asked for return of the impounded books of account and documents on the ground that the period of time prescribed under Section 133A(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act had expired. However, the same have not been returned to the petitioners. By letter dated October 14, 2003, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Head Quarters, informed the petitioners that their cases are proposed to be transferred under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, CC-XXI, Kolkata, and by the said letter the petitioners were directed to appear in person or through their authorised representatives on November 5, 2003, to file their objections, if any. In response to the said letters, the petitioners filed their individual but identical objections against the proposed transfer, by their individual letters dated November 5, 2003, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Guwahati-II. Pursuant to the said notices and objections thereto, the impugned order dated November 6, 2003, has been passed ordering transfer of the cases pertaining to the petitioners from Guwahati to Kolkata as indicated in the schedule to the said order dated November 6, 2003. It is the legality and validity of this order which is under challenge in both the writ petitions. The said order dated November 6, 2003, is quoted below :
"Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Guwahati-II, Saikia Commercial Complex, G. S. Road, Guwahati-5.
Order under Section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Date : Guwahati the November 6th, 2003.
The undermentioned cases were fixed for hearing on November 5, 2003, for giving an opportunity of being heard in connection with centralising and transfer of the assessment records from Guwahati to Kolkata for co-ordinating investigations since a search and seizure was conducted against the Rathi group of cases on March 12, 2003, and survey under Section 133A against the following assessees. In response to notices, Shri Ramesh Kumar Rathi, partner of Ramesh and Company, and Shri Brij Mohan Rathi, partner of Rathi and Company, appeared and submitted written submission for non-willingness for the proposed transfer. I have considered their submissions and find them of routine nature. I am unable to appreciate the assessee's view point and therefore reject the submission as for co-ordinated and effective investigation, the centralisation of the cases are necessary.
In view of the above and in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and all other powers enabling me in this behalf, I, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Guwahati-II, hereby, transfer the income-tax and wealth-tax cases of the persons, the particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule below from the Assessing Officers mentioned in column 4 to the Assessing Officer mentioned in column 5 thereof:
SCHEDULE Sl.No. Name and addresses of the assessee GIR Transferred 1 2 3 From To 1 M/s. Ramesh and Company, Guwa-hati.
R-1057-4(2), Guwahati.
ITO-4(2) Guwahati, under CIT, Range-4, Guwahati.
ACITCC-XXI, Kol-kata, under the charge of CIT, Central-II, Kolkata.
2
M/s. Rathi and Com-
330 Ward-4(2),
pany, Guwahati.
Guwahati.
-do.- as above
-do.- as above
Reasons for transfer : Administrative convenience and for co-ordinated and effective investigation.
This order will take effect from 6th November, 2003.
(Sd.) . . . . . . . .
Commissioner of Income-tax, Guwahati-II, Guwahati."
5. The reasons for transfer of the cases have been stated to be the necessity for centralisation of the cases for co-ordinated and effective investigation. I have heard Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned senior counsel assisted by the learned advocate, Mr. S. Saikia, on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel, Income-tax Department, made submissions on behalf of the respondents and also produced the records pertaining to the transfer of the cases.
6. Dr. Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order dated November 6, 2003, is on the face of it cryptic and does not disclose any reason not to speak of any cogent reason. According to him, the reasons as mentioned in the impugned order cannot be said to be specific and tangible requiring and/or warranting transfer of the cases from the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Guwahati, to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata, under the provisions of Section 127 of the Income-tax Act. There being no search and seizure against the petitioner unlike in the case of the other partners whose business is also totally unconnected with the business of the petitioners and the petitioners having their own entity, the impugned order dated November 6, 2003, could not have been passed and that too on vague and indefinite reason as indicated in the order itself, Dr. Saraf submitted. According to him, the ground specified for transfer of the cases is grossly arbitrary and unauthorised and if allowed to stand, would cause serious prejudice to the petitioners, more particularly in view of the fact that they have got no establishment/office in Kolkata or in any part of West Bengal. He also submitted that the petitioners were greatly prejudiced and handicapped towards filing effective objections in the absence of assignment of any specific reasons in the notice proposing transfer of the cases. According to him, the requirements as envisaged under Section 127(2)(a) of the Act having not been complied with, the impugned order dated November 6, 2003, is arbitrary and illegal.
7. Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel, Income-tax Department, on the other hand, made submissions defending the impugned order. Placing reliance on the records produced on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Bhuyan submitted that the fact that there was search and seizure in the business establishment and residences of the partners of the petitioners and also survey operation in the business premises and godowns of the petitioners on the same very date and thereafter clearly indicates a nexus and close connection pertaining to such search, seizure and survey operation amongst the business establishments of the petitioners and in such a situation there is nothing wrong in transferring the cases to Kolkata for facilitating centralised and coordinated investigation.
8. Dr. Saraf, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, placed reliance on the decisions as reported in,
1. Saptagiri Enterprises v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 705 (AP);
2. Vijayasanthi Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief CIT [1991] 187 ITR 405 (AP);
3. Shivajirao Angre v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 162 (MP); and 4 Ajantha Industries v. CBDT [1976] 102 ITR 281 (SC).
On the other hand, Mr. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel, Income-tax Department, placed reliance on the decisions as reported in,
1. Shri Rishikul Vidyapeeth v. Union of India [1982] 136 ITR 139 (Raj) ;
2. Maheshwari Lime Works v. CIT [1984] 147 ITR 804 (MP);
3. Madhav Sharan Agrawal v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 809 (All);
4. Redwood Hotel (P.) Ltd. v. Chief CIT [2003] 259 ITR 191 (Ker);
5. Autofin Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 638 (AP); and
6. One-up Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. R.R. Singh, CIT [2003] 262 ITR 275 (Bom).
9. Following the principle that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it, it is now to be seen in the given fact situation as to whether the impugned order dated November 6, 2003, can stand judicial scrutiny.
10. Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, deals with the power to transfer cases and the impugned order has been passed as per the said provisions which reads as follows :
Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :
"127. (1) The Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him.
(2) Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner,--
(a) where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement then the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order ;
(b) where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise in this behalf.
(3) Nothing in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where the transfer is from any Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) and the offices of all such officers are situated in the same city, locality or place.
(4) The transfer of a case under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and shall not render necessary the re-issue of any notice already issued by the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is transferred.
Explanation.--In Section 120 and this Section, the word 'case', in relation to any person whose name is specified in any order or direction issued thereunder, means all proceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date of such order or direction or which may have been completed on or before such date, and includes also all proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after the date of such order or direction in respect of any year."
11. The cases of the petitioners have been transferred primarily on the ground of necessity for centralisation of the cases for co-ordinated and effective investigation. The petitioners were issued with the show cause notices under the aforesaid provisions of the Act asking them to file their objections and the same were responded to by the petitioners by filing their individual but identical objections. Such objections were filed without any reservation to the show cause notices. Pursuant thereto the impugned order has been issued on
12. November 6, 2003, transferring the cases from Guwahati to Kolkata assigning the aforementioned reason. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the reason assigned is no reason at all and the requirements of issuing notice giving an opportunity to the party concerned to have their say in the matter relating to transfer of the case cannot be an empty formality. The reason assigned at the bottom of the order dated November 6, 2003, "Administrative convenience and for co-ordinated and effective investigation", according to learned counsel for the petitioner is vague and indefinite. It is in this context the aforesaid decisions have been pressed into service. It will be expedient and imperative to examine those cases.
13. In the case of Saptagiri Enterprises [1991] 189ITR 705, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held the reason "to facilitate detailed and coordinated investigation" to be vague and too general in nature and not specific and based on material facts. It relied upon an earlier decision of the same court in interfering with the transfer of the case on the basis of the above mentioned reason. In the case of Vijayasanthi Investments Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 405, the same very High Court held that it is not sufficient merely to say in the notice that the transfer is proposed "to facilitate detailed and co-ordinated investigation". In the counter affidavits filed in both the cases, the income-tax authorities assigned some more reasons and the said High Court held that the petitioners therein having not been informed of the various reasons mentioned in the affidavits, the orders of transfer were invalid. In the second case the court also noticed that the petitioner was never intimated of any reason for the transfer. In the case of Shivajirao Angre [1986] 158 ITR 162, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the question whether the opportunity given is reasonable or not will be a matter for interpretation by the court and not by the authority itself. It has also been held that the requirement of recording of reasons in the order of transfer would dearly indicate that such an order has to be in the sense of quasi-judicial nature and cannot be based on an arbitrary exercise power. It was held that "facility of investigation" would not be a sufficient reason for transfer of a case. In that case, the petitioner was not communicated with any order of transfer of his case which was preceded by a notice to him intimating the proposal to transfer his cases on the ground of detailed and co-ordinated investigation. The apex court in the case of Ajantha Industries [1976] 102 ITR 281, emphasized the need for recording of reasons holding that the requirement of recording reasons under Section 127(1) is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication thereof is not saved by showing that reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee. Non-communication of the reason in the order passed under Section 127(1) was held to be a serious infirmity rendering the order itself invalid.
14. On the other hand, the cases relied upon by learned standing counsel, Income-tax Department, have been pressed into service to bring home the point of his argument that the reason assigned which is necessity for centralisation of the cases for co-ordinated and effective investigation is sufficient and specific reasons and conform to the requirements of Section 127(2) of the Act.
15. In the case of Shri Rishikul Vidyapeeth [1982] 136 ITR 139, the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court referring to the decision of the apex court in Ajantha Industries [1976] 102 ITR 281, held the reasons assigned in the order of transfer of the case to be valid. In that case the reason assigned was "to facilitate co-ordinate investigations along with other connected cases". Such disclosure was held to be sufficient reason. It was held that in the matter of a transfer of a case under Section 127 of the Act, the convenience of the assessee cannot override the need of the Revenue for a better investigation of the case. In the case of Maheshwari Lime Works [1984] 147 ITR 804 of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the transfer of the cases for the purpose of detailed and co-ordinated assessment was held to be justified. The said High Court found support from the decision of this court as reported in Assam Surgical Co. v. CBDT [1984] 145 ITR 400 (Gauhati). In the case of Madhav Sharan Agrawal [1996] 221 ITR 809, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, held the reasons for transfer of the cases "to centralise the cases of all the stock brokers" to be valid. In the case of Redwood Hotel (P.) Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 191, a single judge of the Kerala High Court held that the assessee has no vested right to be assessed in a particular place. The order of transfer of the case of the assessee in respect of group cases, was held to be justified. Likewise in the case of Autofin Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 638 a single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the question whether the circumstances warrant transfer or not is a matter for consideration and the decision of the Commissioner. It was further held that the writ court would be reluctant to interfere in such matter unless there is a patent error of law or error apparent on the face of the record. The last case relied by Mr. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel, Income-tax Department, i.e., One-up Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 275 is the one of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. Noticing the factum of centralisation of the cases concerning various companies, the Bombay High Court held that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such a matter would be uncalled for.
16. In the first two cases relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, the orders of transfer were interfered with on the ground of the reason being vague and omnibus such as "for detailed and co-ordinated investigation" coupled with the fact that some more grounds were disclosed in the affidavits which were not so disclosed to the petitioners. In the third case also as in the first two cases the reason assigned was the same, which was considered to be vague and general not constituting a valid reason for transfer of the cases. In the fourth case cited on behalf of the petitioner, the apex court held that noncommunication of the reasons in the order passed under Section 127 is a serious infirmity in the order for which the same is invalid. In the notice sent to the appellants in that case proposing transfer of their case files while asking the appellants to submit their objections, the reasons assigned was "for facility of investigation" and it was on that basis the impugned order of transfer was passed. Such a course of action did not find favour With the Supreme Court. However, in the instant cases the reason assigned for transfer of the cases is the necessity for centralisation of the cases for co-ordinated and effective investigations. The impugned order itself indicates that search and seizure was conducted against the "Rathi" group of cases on October 12, 2003, and survey under Section 133A against the petitioners. It was in that context the transfer of the cases sought to be made and the impugned order dated November 6, 2003, was passed.
17. The records produced on behalf of the Department revealed that the "Rathi" group of cases pertaining to which the aforesaid operations were carried out on March 12, 2003, and thereafter at different places consist of 36 assessees and the names of the petitioners find place at serial Nos. 27 and 28 of the said list of the assessees. The records also revealed that the search operations carried out in the "Rathi" group of cases led to the seizure of cash and other assets. The impugned decisions were arrived at for centralisation of the "Rathi" group of cases and this is precisely the reason as to why the impugned order was passed assigning the reason of necessity for centralisation of the cases for co-ordinated and effective investigation which cannot be said to be akin or similar to the reason assigned like "for detailed and co-ordinated investigation" or "for facility of investigation". The reason is discernible from the impugned order itself and it is not a case of not assigning any reason. If the centralisation of 36 cases involving the "Rathi" group, which include the petitioners as well, is necessary for co-ordinated and effective investigation, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal on the ground of being devoid of any reason.
18. I may gainfully refer to the Division Bench judgment of this court as reported in Assam Surgical Co. v. CBDT [1984] 145 ITR 400. In that case also the petitioners questioned the validity of the order of transfer on more or less the very same grounds as in the instant case. The transfer in that case was effected "to facilitate co-ordinated investigation in all connected search cases by one Income-tax Officer at Delhi". In that case also, the Division Bench of this court noticed that the petitioners' firm and others were in one group and for a co-ordinated investigation in one place, Delhi was chosen as the place for investigation and assessment. Such a ground was assailed as "no ground". The court observed that the reason for transfer was to have co-ordinated investigation of all the cases in Delhi to entrap the tax-dodgers. The court further noticed that there was no allegation of malice or bias against the Board or its members and held that for expeditious and efficient investigation, co-ordinated actions are called for and in such a situation the exercise of power of transfer must be held to be valid in accordance with the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. The court also took into account the apex court decision in Ajantha Industries [1976] 102 ITR 281 relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners emphasising the need for recording reasons for transfer. This court observed that the apex court did not hold that the show cause notice which contained only the expressions "facility of investigation" as invalid. The reasons assigned for transfer in that case as in the instant case were held to be sufficient. Regarding non-disclosure of materials in the notice enabling the petitioners to submit their effective objections, the court held that if the petitioners were in any doubt, they could have obtained further or other materials if they were up and about.
19. In the instant case also as noticed above the petitioners submitted their objections without any reservation and did not ask for any further materials. In the case of Ajantha Industries [1976] 102 ITR 281 (SC), no reason at all was communicated and the Revenue relied on the grounds set forth in the show cause notice. It was in that context, the apex court held that Section 127(1) of the Act requires recording of reasons and communication thereof to the asses-see. However, in the instant case as in the case of Assam Surgical Co. v. CBDT [1984] 145 ITR 400 (Gauhati), the impugned order dated November 6, 2003, does contain reasons and were duly communicated to the petitioners. Therefore, the infirmities found by the apex court in the case of Ajantha Industries [1976] 102 ITR 281 (SC) are totally absent in the instant cases. The competent authority on perusal of the entire records and after obtaining necessary information arrived at the conclusion that the entire group of cases numbering 36 including that of the petitioners are required to be centralised for effective and co-ordinated investigation. Such a finding arrived at cannot be faulted and the judgment, in the case of Assam Surgical Co. [1984] 145 ITR 400 rendered by the Division Bench of this court as noticed above fully supports the case of the respondents. Necessity of centralisation of cases for co-ordinated and effective investigation cannot be said to be an invalid ground for transferring the cases belonging to a particular group to a single Assessing Officer. It is a good ground for transferring the cases of the petitioners. The cases relied on by learned counsel appearing for the Income-tax Department fully support the case of the respondents as discussed above.
20. Natural justice has been variously defined. It is another name for common sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified, but are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. Notice is the first limb of the principle. As noticed by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Assam Surgical Co. [1984] 145 ITR 400, the petitioners therein could have obtained further or other materials if they were up and about. In the instant case also, the petitioners submitted their identical objections without any reservation and asking for any further materials. Coming to the writ court an argument has been advanced that the reason assigned in the notice and in the final order are different. A similar ground was taken in the Assam Surgical case [1984] 145 ITR 400 (Gauhati) also, which did not find favour with this court. The impugned order of transfer has been passed due to the necessity for centralisation of cases so as to facilitate co-ordinated and effective investigation. Unless a failure of justice is occasioned or it would not be in public interest to dismiss a petition on the fact situation of a case, the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction asked for to be exercised. It is to be noted that legal formulation cannot be divorced from the fact situation of the case. There is no material to show that the petitioners have been prejudiced by the impugned order of transfer and even if it is so, such private interest cannot override the public interest. This court cannot be oblivious of the purport and intention of the incorporation of the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. All interpretations pertaining to the same must Sub-serve and help implementation of the said provision having regard to the predominant purpose. The rules of natural justice cannot be stretched so far as to defeat the ends of justice. If the principle is to be applied in the manner and method as has been asked for by the petitioners, it will lead to an absurdity and will be contrary to common sense of the situation. The petitioners were given due opportunity to submit their objections and it was on consideration of the materials on record and having regard to the necessity for centralisation of all the cases of the particular group for effective and co-ordinated investigation, the impugned order was passed which reason cannot be said to be omnibus or too general, rather such a reason is sound, appealing to common sense and in conformity with the object and purpose for which the provisions of Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were incorporated.
21. In the instant cases the petitioners were informed in writing about the proposal to transfer their cases under Section 127 of the aforesaid Act from Guwahati to Kolkata asking them to submit their objections if any which they complied with without any reservation and asking for any further materials. It was on that basis the impugned order of transfer dated November 6, 2003, was passed. Cogent and sufficient reasons have been assigned in the order itself which find full support from the records as noticed above. Although the reasons for transfer have been briefly indicated at the bottom of the order to which reference was made by learned counsel for the petitioners to bring home his point of argument that the reasons assigned are vague and indefinite, one will have to read the entire order to test the reasonableness of the order itself. The order clearly reveals that the impugned course of action had to be adopted by way of transfer of the assessment records in question from Guwahati to Kolkata for co-ordinating investigations since a search and seizure was conducted against the "Rathi" group of cases on March 12, 2003, and survey under Section 133A against the petitioners which necessitated centralisation of the cases for co-ordinated and effective investigation which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be devoid of any reason, rather such a ground for effecting transfer of the cases is strong and sufficient ground. The essence of the order is to be judged on the basis of the substance and not the form. If the respondents felt the necessity to centralise the 36 cases for co-ordinated and effective investigation necessitating transfer of the cases pertaining to the petitioners from Guwahati to Kolkata under a single Assessing Officer, no fault could be attributed to the respondents and for that matter to the decision making process and the decision itself. The decisions on which learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance are clearly distinguishable and the ratio in those cases will have to be understood in the background of facts of those cases. On the other hand, the decisions relied on behalf of the respondents fully support their case. The Division Bench decision of this court in Assam Surgical Co.'s case [1984] 145 ITR 400 squarely covers the case in hand and I am bound by the said decision.
22. The impugned order was passed on November 6, 2003, and has been made effective from November 6, 2003. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the cases have already been transferred to Kolkata and it would not be prudent to disturb with the process of centralisation of the cases for effective and co-ordinated investigation at this stage. The petitioners waited for three months from the date of passing of the impugned order without taking any steps. It was in that context the aforesaid submission was made in respect of consideration of the interim prayer made in the writ petitions for stay of the impugned order and not to proceed any further in the matter in pursuance of the said order. However, since the entire matter has been heard for decision and disposal, I need not deal with that aspect of the matter, although the same cannot be said to be an irrelevant consideration towards interference with the impugned order dated November 6, 2003, pursuant to which the matter must have proceeded further in Kolkata before the appropriate authority.
23. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.