TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Visakhapatnam as-the main factory of flagship company was situate there most of documents were seized there and it was under the DIT-Hyderabad, under whose supervision, the search took place. In the transfer order, it is also mentioned that after search, assessment orders the assessee could seek de-centralisation after the search assessment order is passed, they could seek de-centralisation and the further appeals may be filed in the same way as they were filed earlier. There is no prejudice to them The notice had indicated the reason for transfer as 'centralisation' for 'co-ordinated investigation'. It is for this reason that order for transfer were made. There was no denial of reasonable opportunity to the Assesses. The word 'co-ordinated investigation' is not vague. The transfer orders transferring the cases to the ACIT-Visakhapatnam are valid. It has a definite meaning and the transfer order can not be set aside merely on the ground that the transfer has been done on vague terms. - Writ Appeal Nos. 27 to 40 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2013 - YATINDRA SINGH, CJ.And Pritinker Diwaker, JJ. For the Appellant Anand Dadariya. For the Respondent Vivek Shrivastava, H.S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the Assessees placed reliance on WA-1006 of 2012 SKS Ispat v. Union of India decided on 12.12.2012 (the SKS-Ispat case) and submits that: * The transfer order under Section 127(2) of the Act is a quasi-judicial order as it has to indicate the reasons and it cannot be passed unless a reasonable opportunity is given to the Assessees; * The writ petitions were filed for quashing of the quasi judicial orders and they have been quashed by the single judge; * The order passed by the single judge was under Article 227 and no writ appeal is maintainable against the order of the single judge under section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (the 2006-Act). 9. In order to decide this point, it is necessary to decide whether the impugned orders of transfer were quasi-judicial orders or not. 10. In AK Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1970 SC 150 (the AK-Kraipak case) (paragraph 13), the Supreme Court observed that the dividing line between an administrative power and a quasi-judicial power was thin. And in order to determine the nature of power, the point to consider is-the nature of the power, to whom it was conferred, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. DIT [2000] 244 ITR 33, where transfer order was upheld though reasons were not indicated on the ground that transfer was on administrative reasons. 19. In this case, a search was held at different places and documents were seized. It is necessary to see them together before passing the order of assessment. The transfer order is for administrative convenience for making co-ordinated investigation. The authority is exercising administrative and not judicial power. The judicial power is to be exercised after co-ordinated investigation, while passing search assessment orders. 20. In our opinion, the authority while passing the transfer orders, did not exercise judicial power. It is an administrative order and not a quasi judicial order. The SKS-Ispat case is not applicable. 21. It is not disputed that in case the order was not a quasi judicial, then the writ appeal would be maintainable. We have already held that power to transfer the assessment cases is not a quasi judicial in nature; no judicial power is exercised: the writ appeal is maintainable. 2nd POINT:TRANSFER ORDER IS EQUATED 22. The counsel for the Assessees placed reliance on decisions (see below)1 and submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to point out that transfer orders for co-ordinated investigation or transfer orders using similar words have been upheld by almost all High Courts in the country, namely, * The Allahabad High Court in Radico Khaitan Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and others 2007 (292) ITR 507 (All) and Bhatia Minerals v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others 200 ITR 591; * The Calcutta High Court in Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income-tax and others [2009] 310 ITR 372 (paragraph 12 15); * The Delhi High Court in ATS Infrastructure Ltd others v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2009] 318 ITR 299 (Delhi) (paragraph 11); * The Gauhati High Court in Rathi and Company v. Union of India and others [2004] 267 ITR 295 (Gauhati) (paragraph 17 to 19); * The Patna High Court in Mukti Morcha v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others [1997] 225 ITR 284 (paragraph 16); * The Punjab Haryana High Court in Charan Pal Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another 2008 307 ITR 132. Let us consider the relevant cases cited by the counsel for the Assessees. Relevant Decisions cited by the counsel for the Assessees 30. Most of the cases relied upon by the counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the MP High Court . This is clear from the following clarification: * The Saptagiri case was decided by the AP High Court on the basis of the Vijayasanthi case, which was decided on the basis of the Shivajirao case and the Sagarmal case; * The Shivjirao case was decided by the MP High Court on the basis of the earlier decision in the Sagarmal case. 33. In the Vijayasanthi and Saptagiri cases that were decided by the AP High Court as well as the Shivjirao case decided by the MP High Court, the transfer orders were for co-ordinated investigation. It was set aside basically on the reasoning given in the Sagarmal case. Let us consider, * What the Sagarmal case was about; and * Whether the law laid down by it was the correct law or not; and * Could it be the basis for holding that the words 'co-ordinated investigation' are vague and setting aside the transfer orders. The Sagarmal Case 34. In the Sagarmal case, the transfer was sought from Indore to Bombay for 'facility of investigation' and not for 'co-ordinated investigation'. It was not a case of search, where documents were seized at different places and it was necessary to consider the documents together to arrive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would like to mention here that the main factory of the flagship company of Mahamaya group is situate at Visakhapatnam. They not only have their offices and residences there but also guest house. There is no inconvenience to them. 42. The search took place at three different places at Dhamtari, Visakhapatnam and Kolkata. The interconnected documents were found at these places. They have to be looked together in order to reach just assessment and cases of two places have to be transferred to third place. As the cases are at three places, the cases of two places have to be transferred at third place for centralisation. 43. The Department has transferred the cases to Visakhapatnam as-the main factory of flagship company was situate there; most of documents were seized there; and it was under the DIT-Hyderabad, under whose supervision, the search took place. 44. In the transfer order, it is also mentioned that after search, assessment orders the assessee could seek de-centralisation ie-after the search assessment order is passed, they could seek de-centralisation and the further appeals may be filed in the same way as they were filed earlier. There is no prejudice to them. Men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estatement, and a large body of useless case law gets confined to the dustbin of legal history.' 51. It is heartening to note that the Indian Law Institute has undertaken the project for 'Restatement of Indian Law'. In the preface to the books already printed, Justice RV Raveendran explains its purpose: 'A Restatement of Indian Law is neither a commentary nor a catalogue of case-law. It is not opinion-based. It is intended to be an authoritative neutral statement of the law on the subject. The objects of a restatement are to state the current law of the land by considering the relevant constitutional/statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements, to identify and remove uncertainties and ambiguities surrounding the legal principles, and to clarify and simplify the law for its better adaptation to the needs of the society ... It is intended to benefit the members of the Bar, Bench, Academia, Civil Servants and general public. A certain amount of uniformity and neutrality is sought to be achieved by ensuring that the restatement is restricted to statutory provisions, well settled legal principles and the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court.' 52. Perhaps, it wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
