The inherent jurisdiction conferred by a statute cannot be lost merely because at one stage the proceedings have been directed to be finalised by one of the two officers, both of whom are invested with the similar inherent jurisdiction.

S.B.Capoor and Inder Dev Dua JJ.

1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was admitted to a Division Bench on 23rd August, 1965, and notice was issued by the Motion Bench for 13th September, 1965.

2. The petitioner-firm was duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act and is a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter described as the Act). The firm deals in vegetable ghee and hydrogenated oils. The petitioner had to file monthly returns under the Act and for the 12 months of the year 1961-62, all the returns were filed with the Assessing Authority at Amritsar, the amount of tax also having been paid in accordance with the returns as provided in Section 10 of the Act. The Excise and Taxation Officer (Finance Department), Chandigarh, Shri S.K. Jain, issued notice under Section 11(2) of the Act for the year 1961-62, but the petitioner-firm challenged that officers jurisdiction to do so because the Assessing Authority at Amritsar was the competent authority to assess the petitioner-firm. This Court was accordingly approached in C.W. No. 382 of 1964, which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 17th November, 1964. That judgment has since been reported as Kishan Chand & Go. V/s. S.K. Jain (1965) 67 P.L.R. 465. I may point out that an application for leave to appeal presented by the respondent has since been disallowed. According to the writ petition, after the Bench decision in the earlier proceedings, the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, informed the petitioner firm as per notice dated 23rd March, 1965, that the assessment proceedings would be taken up and finalised by Shri D. P. Gupta, Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, instead of the Excise and Taxation Officer (Finance Department) as ordered by the said Commissioner on 6th March, 1965. The assessment proceedings as a result of this information, according to the writ petition, stood transferred to Mr. D.P. Gupta and no other Assessing Authority or officer is empowered to exercise jurisdiction or authority to deal with the matter or take any action or issue notice for assessment proceeding dealing with the matter which was disposed of in C.W. No. 382 of 1964. The petitioner-firm was served with a notice dated 10th June, 1965, by Shri N.L. Murgai, Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, in Form S.T. XIV, requiring appearance on 25th June, 1965, for showing the account books for the year 1961-62 ending 31st March, 1962. On 25th June, 1962, the petitioner appeared before the respondent and filed an application questioning his jurisdiction on two grounds, namely, (i) that Mr. D. P. Gupta is the authority to deal with the case on account of the transfer order passed by the Joint Excise and Taxa-tion Commissioner dated 6th March, 1965, and (ii) that the matter as to whether Shri S.K. Jain was competent to deal with the assessment was still sub judice in view of the S.C.A. No. 18 of 1965 pending in the High Court. This application was rejected by the respondent on 25th June, 1965. After rejection of the petitioners application questioning the respondents jurisdiction the petitioner filed another application on the same day, seeking opportunity to produce the account books of the firm. The above application was also disallowed and the respondent closed the petitioners case without giving any further date. The said respondent, so proceeds the averment in the writ petition, did not frame any assessment, nor has he taken the petitioner into confidence as to what he proposed to do in the matter except saying that he was fully competent to frame the assessment and that he would do so and proceed on best judgment basis. It is in these circumstances that the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been presented and the challenge is based on the ground that the respondent has no jurisdiction either to issue the impugned notice or to frame any assessment against the petitioner. A wr