Judgement

S. R. DAS, CJI. (with him BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS AND SINHA, JJ.) :

This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution praying for an appropriate writ and order restraining the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi (respondent 3) from taking up and proceeding with the assessment of the petitioner to income-tax and other ancillary reliefs. The facts shortly are as follows:

2. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business as manufacturer and seller of Bidi. In 1948 it was registered as a firm under the Indian Partnership Act. It has its head office in Calcutta, where its books of account are said to be kept and maintained and where it is said to have its banking account. It has its factories near Chakradharpur in the State of Bihar but it has no banking account there. The members of the firm are citizens of India.

3. It is said that since its inception the firm has all along been assessed to income-tax by the Income-tax Officer, District III Calcutta. Thus assessments for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 were made by the Income-tax Officer, District III, Calcutta. Notices under S. 22(2), Income-tax Act were issued to the petitioner on different dates by the Income-tax Officer, District III, Calcutta, calling upon the petitioner to submit returns for the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53, 1953-1954 and 1954-55, the notice for the last mentioned year being dated 23-8-1954.

In compliance with these notices the petitioner duly submitted its returns for those respective years to the Income-tax Officer, District III, Calcutta. In the course of assessment proceedings for the year 1950-51 a question was raised regarding the location of the principal place of business of the petitioner. Eventually the income-tax authorities seem to have been satisfied that it was in Calcutta and on 18-12-1954 the Income-tax Officer, District III, Calcutta, made assessment for the year 1950-51.

On 25-1-1955 the petitioner received a letter from the Income-tax Officer, District III Calcutta informing it "that in pursuance to orders under S. 5(7-A) Income-tax Act your assessment records are transferred from this office to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi with whom you may correspond in future regarding your assessment proceedings." The order referred to in the above communication was as follows:

No. 55(70) IT/54.

Central Board of Revenue.

New Delhi, dated the 13th December, 1954.

ORDER,

No. 87. Under sub-section (7-A) of S. of S. 5 Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) the Central Board of Revenue hereby transfers the case of Biri Supply Company, 3/1, Madan Street, Calcutta from the Income-tax Officer, District III(1) Calcutta to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi.

Sd. (K.B. Deb),

Under Secretary,

Central board of Revenue.

4. It is alleged and not denied by the respondent that the petitioner had no previous notice of the intention of the Income-tax authorities to transfer the assessment proceedings from Calcutta to Ranchi nor had it any opportunity to make any representation against such decision. Thereafter on 2-5-1955 the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi called upon the petitioner to submit its return for assessment year 1955-56.

It is then that the present petition was filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Order of transfer dated 13-12-1954 and the law under which such order was purported to have been made. The contention is that sub-s. (7-A) of S. 5 Income-tax Act, 1922 and the said Order of transfer made thereunder are unconstitutional in that they infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner by Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 31 of the Constitution.

5. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territories of India. The expression "the State" used in Part III of the Constitution which deals with fundamental rights includes, unless the context otherwise requ