BENZ CORPORATION Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was an assessee to income-tax on the files of the first-respondent, made an application to him for transfer of the said files to Delhi, where the petitioner's administrative office also was transferred. It is stated that since no reply was received from the first respondent, the petitioner filed returns before the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 10(1), New Delhi, and the assessment for the year 1990-91 has been completed by him evidenced by exhibit P-2. It is stated that, while the matter stood thus, the second respondent issued exhibit P-3 communication stating that the assessment files of the petitioner has been transferred from the first-respondent to the second respondent. Within one month thereafter, the petitioner received a communication exhibit P-4 from the fourth respondent, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Kochin, stating that he proposes to transfer the petitioner's assessment files from the first respondent to the third respondent for administrative convenience and called for the petitioner's objection, if any, to the above. THE petitioner filed exhibit P-5 objection stating that the petitioner was then assessed to income-tax by the income-tax authorities at Delhi. THE fourth respondent issued exhibit P-6 notification transferring the assessment of the petitioner to the third respondent. THE petitioner then filed exhibit P-7 objection, which was disposed of by exhibit P-8 communication stating that the objections raised by the petitioner in exhibit P-5 was considered while issuing exhibit P-6 notification and that no further circumstances have been brought for fresh consideration.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this original petition for quashing exhibits P-3, P-4, P-6 and P-8 communication and for directing the respondents not to give effect to exhibit P-6 notification. THE petitioner also seeks for a direction to the respondents not to transfer the files of the petitioner from Delhi to any other place.

(3.) I have also heard Sri N. R. K. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. He submitted that the fourth respondent had considered all the facts and circumstances stated in the counter affidavit and that it is only thereafter that the fourth-respondent issued exhibit P-6 notification.