PUTTUSWAMY, J.

1. In these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners who are either Tax advocates or IT practitioners (IT Ps) or assessees under the IT Act, 1961 (as the case may be) have challenged the constitutional validity of S. 44AB of the Act as introduced by Finance Act, 1984. On the very questions raised in these petitions, there is no authoritative ruling of the Supreme Court or this Court. The questions raised in these cases will affect a large number of Tax Advocates, IT practitioners and assesees in the country itself. IN these circumstances, I am of the opinion that these are fit cases to be heard and decided by a Division Bench of this Court. IN exercise of powers conferred under S. 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, I refer these cases to a Division Bench for disposal.

ORDER OF DIVISION BENCH PUTTASWAMY, J. : On a reference made by one of us, (Puttaswamy, J.) these cases were posted before us for disposal.

2. As the petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the constitutional validity of S. 44AB of the IT Act of 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) ('the Act'), we propose to dispose of these petitions by this order.

1. There are two groups