P L D 1964 Dacca 304 (PLP)

MURSHED, J.‑--The petitioner, Shaikh Naseem Anwar, owns a tannery in East Pakistan and carries on business of import and export under the name and style of "Messrs S. Fazal Ellahi and Dilkhusha Tanneries." He migrated into East Pakistan in the year 1950 and claims to have, since then, brought a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in this country between the years 1950‑1956. On this footing, his further claim is that he is entitled to tax relief on the aforesaid sum of money. He states that he has been sub mitting income‑tax returns regularly. It seems that the Income- tax Officer had been increasing the amount of income that the petitioner had shown in such returns and it further appears that the income shown by him were upheld on appeal, except on one occasion when the same was modified in his favour. The petitioner has made various allegations of mala fide on the part of the Income‑tax Officer and has set out particulars by which he has tried to show that he has not been fairly dealt with by that department. We are not, at the present moment, concerned with such averments as they are not material for a decision in this case. The most material part of the petition is that a communica tion purported to be issued, under subsection (2) of section 5 of the Income‑tax Act, 1922 (Act XI of 1922) (hereinafter called the Act), by an officer of the Central Board of Revenue has been impeached as illegal and bad in law. Furthermore, the transfer ence of the case of the petitioner to Income‑tax Officer, Investiga tion Circle III, has been similarly challenged as being without lawful authority and of no legal validity.

2. It transpires that on the 12th of December 1961, an order was passed by one Mr. H. U. Beg who signed the order for the Secretary, Central Board of Revenue, which reads thus: "In pursuance of subsection (2) of section 5 of the Income -tax Act, 1922, (XI of 1922), the Central Board of Revenue, is pleased to assign to the Commissioner of Investigation, Karachi the cases specified in the Schedule below : "Schedule S. No. Name of the assessee Existing Jurisdiction . ... ... ... ... Commissioner of In‑ come‑tax, East Pakistan, Dacca

80. Messrs S. Fazal Elahi (Prop. S. Nasim Anwar), 71, Water Works Road, (Posta), Dacca. do. (Sd.) H. U. Beg, For Secretary Central Board of Revenue." Thereafter, on the 16th of December 1961, the following order was passed by Mr. Z. A. Zuberi, Commissioner of Income‑tax, (Investigation), Karachi: "In pursuance of subsection (5) of section 5 of the Income -tax, Act, 1922, (XII (sic) of 1922), the cases mentioned in the Schedule attached to this order, which have since been allotted to the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Investigation), Karachi, by the Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan, Karachi, under section 5(2) of the Income‑tax Act, are hereby assigned to the Income‑tax Officer, (Investigation), Circle 1, Dacca. This order shall have effect from the 14th Dec ember 1961. (Sd.) Z. A. Zuberi, Commissioner of Income‑tax, (Investigation) Karachi. Copy to :‑

1. The Commissioner of Income‑tax, Dacca.

2. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income‑tax (Investigation), Dacca.

3. The Income‑tax Officer (Investigation) Circle, Dacca. He should please inform the assessee concerned regarding change of jurisdiction. Cases assigned to Income‑tax Officer (Investigation), Circle 1, Dacca : Schedule S. No. Name of the Assessee

65. Messrs S. Fazal Elahi, (Prop.) S. Nasim Anwar, 71, Water Works Road, (Posta), Dacca. Finally, another order was passed by the said Commissioner of Income‑tax, namely, Mr. Z. A. Zuberi, on the 18th of April 1962; which runs thus: "In pursuance of subsection (7‑A) of section 5 of the Income‑tax Act, 1922 (XII (sic) of 1922), the cases mentioned in the Schedule attached to this order which have been assigned by me to the Income‑tax Officer (Investigation), Circle I, Dacca, under subsection (5) of section 5 of the Income‑tax Act, are hereby transferred to the Income‑tax Officer, (Investigation), Circle III, Dacca. This order takes effect from the date Mr. Abu Taher, P.

1. S., takes over charge in the Investigation Department as Income -tax Officer (Investigation), Circle III, Dacca. (Sd.) Z. A. Zuberi, Commissioner of Income‑tax, (Investigation), Karachi. Copy to :‑

(1) The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income‑tax (Investigation), Dacca. (2) The Income‑tax Officer (Investigation), Circle I, Dacca. (3) The Income‑tax Officer (Investigation), Circle III, Dacca. Cases transferred to the Income‑tax Officer (Investigation), Circle III, Dacca, under section 5 (7‑A). Schedule. S. No. Name of the Assessee.

13. Messrs S. Fazal Elahi, (Prop. S. Nasim Anwar), 71, Water Works Road, (Posta), Dacca."

3. At the hearing of the rule the validity of the aforesaid orders which are Annexures B, C and D to the affidavit‑in -opposition of the respondents, was challenged before us. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsection (2) of section 5 of the Act did not contemplate a person‑wise assign ment of cases to a "Special" Commissioner appointed under the said subsection without reference to any area. It was next argued that, if the order dated the 12th of December 1961, alleged to have been passed under section 5(2) of the Act, was bad, then the subsequent order passed on the 16th of December 1961, under section 5(5) of the Act was also bad. Finally, it was contended that the order dated the 18th of April 1962, was bad not only on the ground stated above, but also on the further ground, that there could not be any person‑wise transference of cases under subsection (7‑A) of section 5 of the Act. The substance of the argument is, that any transference made under subsection (7‑A) must be done with reference to a case or cases and that the said subsection does not contemplate a transference of cases person-wise. Of course, the main and immediate attack is on the notice in respect of assessment for the years 1958‑59 to 60‑61.

4. In these circumstances, it would be useful to consider the relevant provisions of the Act. Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of section 64 of the Act run thus: "64.‑(1) Where an assessee carries on a business, profession or vocation at any place, he shall be assessed by the Income- tax Officer of the area in which that place is situate or, where the business, profession or vocation is carried on in more places than one, by the Income‑tax Officer of the area in which the principal place of his business, profession or vocation is situate. (2) In all other cases, an assessee shall be assessed by the Income‑tax Officer of the area in which he resides. (3) Where any question arises under this section as to the place of assessment, such question shall be determined by the Commissioner, or, where the question is between places in areas within the jurisdiction of more Commissioners than one, by the Commissioner concerned, or, if they are not in agreement, by the Central Board of Revenue Provided that, before any such question is determined the assessee shall have had an opportunity for representing the views: Provided further that the place of assessment shall not be called in question by an assessee if he had made a return under subsection (1) of section 22 and has stated therein the principal place wherein he carries on his business, profession or vocation, or if he has not made such a return shall not be called in question after the expiry of the time allowed by the notice under sub section (2) of section 22 or under section 34 for the making of a return : Provided further that if the place of assessment is called in question by an assessee the Income‑tax Officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for determination under this subsection before assessment is made."

5. It is thus evident that the statute specifically provides for a most convenient place of assessment of Income‑tax with regard to an assessee; either in respect of his personal income or his business; professional or vocational income. Subsection (5), which is a later amendment of the said section 64, however, provides that in so far as cases which have been assigned under section 5 (2) or section 5 (6) or section 5(7‑A) and, in certain circumstances, those assigned under section 5(6) of the Act, the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of that section shall be deemed never to have applied at any time. From the aforesaid provisions it appears that the said Act contemplates the assess ment of income at a place most convenient to the assessee subject to certain exigencies of assessment with regard to special cases or classes of cases or in respect of certain other matters which we need not specify here. In this back‑ground the provisions of section 5 of the Act should be read. We, therefore, sub stantially quote this section which runs thus : "5. (1) There shall be the following classes of income‑tax authorities for the purposes of this Act, namely, (a) The Central Board of Revenue, (aa) Directors of Inspection, (b) Commissioner of Income‑tax, (c) Assistant Commissioner of Income‑tax who may be either Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income‑tax, (d) Income‑tax Officers, (dd) Examining Officers, (e) Inspectors of Income‑tax. (1‑A) The Central Government may appoint as many Directors of Inspection as it thinks fit, and the Directors of Inspection shall perform such functions as may be assigned to them by the Central Board of Revenue. (2) The Central Government may appoint a Commissioner of Income‑tax for any area specified in the order of appoint ment and may appoint Commissioners of Income‑tax, not more than three in all, each to discharge, without reference to area, and to the exclusion of any Commissioner appointed for any area, the functions of a Commissioner in respect of any cases or classes of cases assigned to him by the Central Board of Revenue. (3) The Central Government may appoint as many Appellate or Inspecting Assistant Commissioners of Income‑tax and Income‑tax Officers as it thinks fit. (3‑A) Subject to the rules and orders of the Central Govern ment regulating the conditions of service of persons in public services and posts, an income‑tax authority may appoint Examining Officers, Inspectors of Income‑tax and such other executive or ministerial staff as may be necessary. (4) Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income‑tax shall be under the direct control of the Central Board of Revenue and shall perform their functions in respect of such persons or classes of persons or of such incomes or classes of income or in respect of such areas as the Central Board of Revenue may direct, and, where such directions have assigned to two or more Appellate Assistant Commissioners of Income‑tax, the same persons or classes of persons or the same incomes or classes of income or the same area, in accordance with any orders which the Central Board of Revenue may make for the distribution and allocation of the work to be performed. (5) Inspecting Assistant Commissioners of Income‑tax and Income‑tax Officers shall perform their functions in respect of such persons or classes of persons or of such income or classes of income or in respect of such areas as the Commissioners of Income‑tax may direct, and %here such directions have assigned to two or more Inspecting Assistant Commissioners of Income‑tax or Income‑tax Officers, the same persons or classes of persons or the same income or classes of income or the same area, in accordance with any orders which the Commis sioner of Income‑tax may make for the distribution or alloca tion of the work to be performed. The Commissioner may, with the previous approval of the Central Board of Revenue, by general or special order in writing, direct that the powers conferred on the Income‑tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by or under this Act shall, in respect of any specified case or class of cases be exercised by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner, respectively, and, for the purposes of any case in respect of which such order applies, references in this Act or in any rules made here under to the Income‑tax Officer and the Appellate Commissioner shall be deemed to be reference, to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner, respectively. (5‑A) Examining Officers and Inspectors of Income‑tax shall perform such functions in the execution of this Act as may be assigned to them by the Income‑tax authority under whom they are appointed to work, and shall be subordinate to such authority. (6) The Central Board of Revenue may, by notification in the Official Gazette, empower Commissioner of Income‑tax, Appellate or Inspecting Assistant Commissioners of Income‑tax and Income‑tax Officers to perform such functions, in respect of such classes of persons or such classes of income or such area, as may be specified in the notification, and thereupon the functions so specified shall cease to be performed in respect of the specified classes of persons or classes of income or area by the other authorities appointed under subsections (2) and (3). (7‑A) The Central Board of Revenue may transfer any case from one Income‑tax Officer to another, the Commissioner of Income‑tax may transfer any case from one Income‑tax Officer subordinate to him to another, and an Income‑tax Officer may, if authorised by the Commissioner of Income‑tax to whom he is subordinate to do so and subject to such conditions as the said Commissioner may think fit to impose, transfer any case falling within his jurisdiction to another Income‑tax Officer. Such transfer may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and shall not render necessary the issue of any notice already issued by any Income‑tax Officer. Explanation.‑In this subsection, `case' in relation to any person whose name is specified in the order of transfer means all proceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date of the transfer, and includes all proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after the date of the transfer in respect of any year."

6. It is evident that section 5 is, in essence, a copy by which distribution of work has to be made amongst the various hierarchy of Revenue Officers in the Income‑tax Department. Subsection (2) authorises the normal appointment of Com missioners of Income‑tax with reference to area. The same subsection also contemplates the appointment of a special kind of Commissioner of Income‑tax (whose number should not exceed three) to deal with cases or classes of cases assigned to him by the Central Board of Revenue without reference to any area. It is further evident that the statute seeks to limit not merely the number of such special kind of Commissioner, but also provides that only cases or classes of cases may be assigned to the said "Special" Commissioner. (The word `special' has not been used in the section and we have used it to distinguish such officials from Commissioners appointed with reference to areas). The next subsection is subsection (4) quoted above. It will be seen that the aforesaid subsection contemplates distribution of work to Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income‑tax with reference to persons or classes of persons within a specified area. Subsection (`) refers to the normal distribution of work amongst the Inspect ing Assistant Commissioner of Income‑tax Officers. This sub section contemplates assignment of cases person‑wise or in respect of classes of persons or income‑wise or classes of incomes coupled with an area fixed by the C commissioner. Another important provisions of the said subsection (5) is that it empowers the con ferment of the powers of an Income‑tax Officer on an Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income‑tax or a Commissioner, respectively, in respect of any specified cases or classes of cases. The conferment of such special power is permitted to be made case‑wise. Under subsection (6) of section 5, the Central Board of Revenue is empowered to distribute such work amongst the Commissioners of Income‑tax, Appellate or Inspecting Assistant Commissioners of Income‑tax and Income‑tax Officers as may be assigned to him in respect of classes of persons or classes of incomes or in accordance with a specified area. Here again the distribution of work is person‑wise, income‑wise and area‑wise. The further requirement of the subsection is that the assignment of work under it must be done by notification in the Official Gazette. Subsection (7‑A) provides for transference of any case from one Income‑tax Officer to another. Such a power is ancillary to the proper functioning of any system where cases have to be decided by individual officers, judicial or adminis trative.

7. From an examination of the relevant subsections of section 5 of the Act the most patent characteristic which strikes one in the face, is that under the various subsections enumerated above the distribution of work has to be done in several different manners, namely, person‑wise, case‑wise, income‑wise and area- wise. This is the distinctive feature of the scheme of the Income- tax Act as is evident from the said section 5 which has been quoted above. In this context, if we turn back to subsection (2) of section 5 it will appear that the second part of the subsection contemplates the appointment of a special type of Commissioner to deal with specified cases or classes of cases. It is also clear that the said subsection does not contemplate such appointment as a permanent feature; it merely authorises the Central Govern ment to make such appointment and limits the maximum number to which such appointment can be done. The requirement to assign work to them case‑wise is also very important in this back ground. We hold that subsection (2) of section 5 does not con template a person‑wise assignment of cases to the said "Special"` Commissioner. It is imperative that such assignment must be case‑wise. It is important to bear in mind the distinction between assignment of work case‑wise, person‑wise, income‑wise, area- wise, class‑wise or classes‑of‑income‑wise. The Act has main tained such distinction with meticulous care.

8. In this connection, we may notice the following cases which throw a flood of light on the concept of distribution of work case‑wise or class‑wise.

9. With regard to an assignment of a case, we may quote the observation of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bidi Supply Co. v. The Union of India and others (28 I T R 777). In the judgment that was pronounced by Das, C. J., there occurs the following pronouncement with reference to subsection (7‑A) "The subsection in terms makes provisions for the transfer of a `case'. Under the Indian Income‑tax Act, 1922, a `case' is started when the Income‑tax Officer issues a notice under section 22 (2) of the Act calling upon the assessee to file his return of his total income and total world income during the previous year and then the assessee submits his return in the prescribed form. It is quite clear from the section that the notice and the return are to be confined to a particular assessment year and the subsection contemplates the transfer of such a `case'. i.e., the assessment case for a particular year." In the aforesaid judgment it was decided that the aforesaid sub section (7‑A) did not contemplate a transference of cases which might arise in future. As a result of the aforesaid judgment, the Income‑tax Act itself was subsequently amended and we are not concerned with the said amendment at the present moment. We have quoted the aforesaid observation because it conveys an idea as to what a case implies in the context of the Income‑tax Act.

10. Another case, which elucidates what an allocation or work with reference to classes of persons means, is a decision of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Lachiram Basantalal Nathani (33 C W N 1206). Sir George Rankin, C. J., in delivering the judgment of the Court has observed: "We have been provided with a copy of the order, dated the 13th December 1927 under which a `direction is given by the Commissioner' with respect to the officer in question. It is as follows :‑

`In exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 5 (4) of the Indian Income‑tax Act (XI of 1922), 1 hereby appoint Babu Phanindra Lal Bhuttacharya, Income‑tax Officer, to perform all the functions of an Income‑tax Officer in respect of those persons in Calcutta whose cases may be made over to him by me from time to time. The question is whether `those persons in Calcutta whose cases may be made over to him by me from time to time,' is a class of persons within the meaning of clause (4) of section

5. I am clearly of opinion that it is not. It is not possible for any assessee or other person by looking to the definition given in this order to ascertain whether or not his case is one which is affected by it. This order requires a special direction to be given under it from time to time assigning not classes but individual cases to the officer in question. There may or may not be objections, serious or otherwise, to such a course but I am clear that it is riot a course warranted by subsection (4) of section S of the Act."

11. The actual decision in the aforesaid case is not relevant to the points raised in this case and we have quoted the above mentioned dictum of Rankin, C. J., to bring out a distinction between distribution of work case‑wise or class‑wise. It would be noticed that Sir George Rankin, C. J., was of opinion that the distinction might not have a very material bearings, but he emphasised the fact that such a course was not warranted by the provisions of subsection (4) of section 5 of the Act.

12. In the case of Dayaldas Kushiram v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (A I R 1940 Born. 234), Sir John Beaumont, C. J., pronouncing the judgment of the Court has observed thus (p. 237): "The second point argued was that if the Income‑tax Officer, Section II (Central), can assess the assessee in respect of the year 1939‑40, at any rate he cannot assess him in respect of the two previous years, because it is said that pending assessment can only be transferred under section 5, sub section (2) of the amending Act. This point is only of importance if I am wrong in thinking that the last mentioned officer cannot assess the applicant at all, but as the learned Advocate General invited us to express our opinion on the second point, and as i has some relevance under prayer (a) of the petition, I would say shortly that to my mind the right to transfer cases or classes of cases under section 5 covers pending assessments, but does not cover a case in which an assessment has been completed."

13. Here also we are not concerned with the particular decision in the aforesaid case. But the observation of Beaumont, C. J., affords a valuable guide to the understanding of the concept of a case‑wise assignment of work under the Income‑tax Act. In the aforesaid case it was held that under subsection (2) of section 5 there could not be any assignment of cases which has already been completed because no such cases could be called existing or pending cases. Sir John Beaumont, C. J., therefore, observed that the said subsection contemplated an assignment of pending cases and not cases which were dead and gone in the sense that they had been completed.

14. In the case of Manerdas Kalidas v. C. R. Dossi and others (37ITR303) which was also a judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, it was held that the expression "cases or classes of cases" in subsection (2) of section 5 of the Act did not refer to completed assessment. It was further held that a com pleted assessment, after it had been revived by the issue of a notice under section 34, may become a pending case on such re opening, but until then it was not a case within the meaning of section 5(2) of the Act.

15. In the light of what has been stated above, we now proceed to examine the first order which has been impeached before us, namely, the order purported to have been made under section 5(2) of the Act, which is Annexure B to the affidavit‑in -opposition. Annexure B is part of an order which has been passed in respect of a large number of persons. The question is, does the aforesaid order assign cases to the "Special" Commis sioners case‑wise or person‑wise? It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that, in fact, under the aforesaid order pending cases of the assessee‑petitioner had been assigned. But is that so?

16. It would be apparent from an examination of the language of the impugned order passed on the 12th of December 1961, as shown in Annexure B of the affidavit‑in‑opposition, that it purports to assign cases to the "Special" Commissioner and not case‑wise but person‑wise. There is no limitation upon the cases as to their number, or assessment year or years. The assignment of cases has been expressly made with reference to the petitioner personally and also with reference to a number of other persons. This is nothing but a person‑wise assignment of work. There is no mention anywhere that is a mere assignment of pending cases of the petitioner. There is also no indication as to assignment of such cases with reference to any assessment year or years. Without any reference to specified cases or pending cases and without any reference to particular assessment year or years, it is a pure and simple assignment of work apper taining to the petitioner with reference to him (and others) personally, unqualified by any specifically mentioned cases or by any limitation of time‑past, present or future. It simply transfers all cases of the petitioner on a personal reference to him without any other qualification or limitation. In these circumstances, it cannot but be held that the aforesaid order is an assignment of work to the "Special" Commissioner person‑wise and not case-wise. To hold otherwise would tantamount to saying that there is no distinction between assignment of work case‑wise or person wise. We have already quoted the impugned order in extenso and, to us, it seems that there can be no manner of doubt that this is a typical instance of distribution of work person‑wise, a course unwarranted by the terms of section. 5 (2) of the Act.

17. We, therefore, hold that the order dated the 12th of December 1961, as embodied in Annexure B to the affidavit‑in- opposition is without lawful authority and of no legal validity. It must also, therefore, be held that the further notice, dated the 16th of December 1961, as shown is Annexure B of the said affidavit‑in‑opposition is equally bad in law.

18. The order dated the 18th of April 1962, is also without any legal validity, first, because it is dependent upon the order passed is Annexure B which we have already held to be illegal and, secondly, because subsection (7‑A) of section 5 of the Act does not contemplate transference of cases person‑wise, notwith standing the explanation which has been subsequently added to the said subsection (7‑A) by way of amendment.

19. Mr. Mesbahuddin has pointed out that the self‑same Income‑tax Officer under the said Commissioner has assessed the petitioner with respect to income for the assessment year 1957‑58, an appeal against which is pending. He has, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the present applica tion. The argument, on the face of it, has no substance. The petitioner has impeached before us notices of later date, namely, 1961‑

62. The appeal is with reference to an individual case of a previous year. There are other cases of the petitioner which are now pending before the income‑tax Officer. What concerns us is the fact that even to‑day the petitioner is being asked to submit assessment made by an Officer who, according to the decision that we have arrived at, is not authorised to do so. In these circumstances, we do not think, we will be justified in refusing to give the petitioner the relief which he is entitled to receive.

20. Mr. Asrarul Hossain has drawn our attention to the fact that the impugned order dated the 12th December 1961, is no order made by the Central Board of Revenue as it has been signed by an officer who has described himself as "H. LT. Beg for Secretary, Central Board of Revenue". He has submitted that a document signed by some body on behalf of the Secretary Board of Revenue cannot be treated as an order of the Board of Revenue. Mr. Mesbahuddin, appearing for the Income‑tax Department, has produced a substantial mass of papers from the Income‑tax Department long after the case was finally heard by us and has asked us to fired for ourselves whether Mr. Beg has been empowered to sign on behalf of the Board of Revenue, we, however, do not like to give any final decision on this point in view of the fact that as we have already held that the impugned orders were without lawful authority.

21. Mr. Asrarul Hossain has drawn our attention to an observation of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pannalal Binjraj v. The Union of India (31 I T R 565), with regard to the propriety of giving an assessee an opportunity to make representa tions against any transference of his case from one official to another. Bhagwati, J. in delivering the judgment of the Court has said (at page 589) as follows:

"We may, however, before we leave this topic observe that it would be prudent if the principles of natural justice are followed, where circumstances permit, before any order of transfer under section 5 (7‑A) of the Act is made by the Commissioner of Income‑tax or the Central Board of Revenue, as the case may be, and notice is given to the party affected and he is afforded a reasonable opportunity of representing his views on the question and the reasons of the order are reduced, however briefly to writing. It is significant that when any question arises under section 64 as to the place of assessment and is determined by the Commissioner or Commissioners or by the Central Board of Revenue, as the case may be, the assessee is given an opportu nity under section 64 (3) of representing his views before any such question is determined. If an opportunity is given to the assessee in such case, it is all the more surprising to find that, when an order of transfer under section 5(7‑A) is made, transferring the case of the assessee from one Income‑tax Officer to another irrespective of the area or (sic) carries on business, he should not be given such an opportunity." We do not wish to be understood that we have decided that even under the amended Income‑tax Act such is not the requirement of law. The matter is left to be decided on a suitable occasion. In the meantime, we would also make the same recommendation to Income‑tax Authority as was done in the case of Pannalal Binjrnj, namely, that it is an elementary principle of natural justice to give hearing (i.e.,) a chance to make a representation) before any decision is taken which adversely affects the assessee with regard to the forum where his income‑tax would be assessed.

22. For reasons, which we have set out above, we make the Rule absolute. It is hereby declared that the Orders dated the 12th of December 1961, 16th of December 1961 and 18th of April 1962 (Annexures B, C and D of the affidavit‑in‑opposition), are without lawful authority and of no legal validity. We also declare that the notice served on the petitioner for assessment years from 1958‑59 to 1960‑61 are without lawful authority and of no legal validity. The respondents are directed to refrain and forbear from giving effect to the same. The petitioner is entitled to the costs of this application, which we assess at twenty Gold Mohurs. A. S. CHOWDHURY, J.‑I agree. S. Q. Rule made absolute.