The equal protection clause does not prohibit special legislature.

Kapur, J.

1. The constitutionality of Sub-sections (7A) and (7B) of Section 5, Income-tax Act, has been challenged in. the present petition on the ground that they contravene the equal protection of the law clause in Article 14 of the Constitution. The former section was inserted by Section 3, Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1940 (Act 40 of 1940) and the latter by Section 4, Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953 (Act 28 of 1953) which came into force retrospectively as from 1-4-1952. When quoted these Sub-sections are as under--

"(7A) The Commissioner of Income-tax may transfer any case from one income-tax Officer subordinate to him to another, and the Central Board of revenue may transfer any case from any "one Income-tax Officer to another, such transfer may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and shall not render necessary the reissue of any notice already issued by the Income-tax Officer from whom the case is transferred.

(7B) The Director of Inspection, the Commissioner or the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, may issue such instructions as he thinks fit for the guidance of any Income-tax Officer subordinate to him in the matter of any assessment, and for the purposes of making any inquiry under this Act (which he is hereby empowered to do), the Director of Inspection, the Commissioner and the Inspecting Assistant Com-missioner shall have all the powers that an Income-tax Officer has under this Act in relation to the making of inquiries".

2. The petitioners carry on business at Hoshiarpur. A general notice under Section 22 (1), Income-tax Act, was first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Hoshiaipur, and then another under Section 22(2), Income-tax Act, was issued calling upon the petitioners to file a return of their income for the assessment year 1950-51 and it is submitted by the Commissioner that the petitioner did not file any return upto December 1954. The assessees have submitted that they have paid all their demands up to the assessment year 1949-50,

3. By a notification dated 27-7-1953, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, created a special circle with headquarters at Ambala with effect from 27-8-53 and the I.-T. Officer appointed to this circle was under the notification to perform all the functions of the Income tax Officer in respect of cases allotted to him from time to time under Section 5(7A), Income-tax Act. A Special Officer was appointed at Ambala on 10-10-1953. It is wrongly given as 1954 in the affidavit. By a notification dated 20-10-1953 (annexure B) six cases including the case of the petitioners were transferred under Section 5(7A), Income-tax Act, to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, and it was directed that he shall exercise the powers of an Income-tax Officer in regard to these persons with effect from 22-10-1953. On 1-12-1853 (annexure "C"). the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, issued a notice to the petitioners informing them that the Jurisdiction in regard to their assesment had been transferred to him from the Income-tax Officer, Jullundur, and their case would be dealt with by him.

4. It appears that the petitioners assessments in regard to assessment years 1944-45 to 1950-51 have been reopened under Section 34, Income-tax Act. Objection has now been taken that by the transfer of their assessment cases from the Income-tax Officer, Jullundur, to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, the petitioners are subjected to a discriminatory treatment which is contrary to the fundamental right given in Art 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. It was admitted before us that the department offered to order the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, to take the assessment proceedings against the petitioners at Hoshiarpur instead of at Ambala but the assessees did not take advantage of this offer and preferred to have the proceedings at Ambala and therefore really there should be no objection on the ground of the place of assessment although