Judgment :- 1. The petitioner carries on the business of selling goods which he produces in his factory. His head office is situated in Chalakudy. The factory of his business is situated in Nellai within the jurisdiction of Irinjalakuda Sales Tax Officer. The business of the petitioner commenced only in 1986, and so far no assessment has been made on him under the K. G. S. T. Act. The petitioner applied for registration as a dealer to the Sales Tax Officer, Chalakudy. That registration was granted. Subsequently, however, the Deputy Commissioner by Ext. P2 order dated 23-10-1986 directed the transfer of the petitioner's records under the K.G.S.T. Act and the C.S.T. Act from the Sales Tax Officer, Chalakudy to the Sales Tax Officer, Irinjalakuda. He further ordered that security, if any, furnished by the petitioner before the Sales Tax Officer, Chalakudy, should stand transferred to the Sales Tax Officer, Irinjalakuda. 2. Claiming to be aggrieved by Ext. P2, the petitioner challenges that order on two grounds. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to transfer the records from Chalakudy where the head office of the petitioner's business is situated to Nellai where he has only a factory. And secondly, in any view, the petitioner having been granted registration at Chalakudy ought to have been heard before the records were transferred to Irinjalakuda. 3. It cannot be gainsaid that the petitioner has a factory at Nellai within the jurisdiction of the Irinjalakuda Sales Tax Officer. Goods produced in that factory are subsequently sold by the petitioner. The factory is a part of the petitioner and it is not a separate unit. 4. The Deputy Commissioner under Se(4) of the K.G.S.T. Act has the power to "transfer any case or cases relating to any assessee or class of assessees pending before an assessing authority to another assessing authority having jurisdiction to deal with such case or cases". The Sales Tax Officer, Irinjalakuda, having jurisdiction over the area where the factory of the petitioner is situated, is an officer to whom the Deputy Commissioner could legitimately transfer the records of the petitioner. Why it was so transferred is not a matter for the Deputy Commissioner to explain to the petitioner. It is purely an administrative order made solely in the exigency of administration. Why it was so transferred is not a matter for the Deputy Commissioner to explain to the petitioner. It is purely an administrative order made solely in the exigency of administration. In such matters, there is no need for the petitioner to be heard: See Tilak Raj v. State of J & K. (1982) 49 S. T. C. 220 (J. & K.). I see no merit in the contentions to the contrary. The Original Petition is dismissed. No costs.