JUDGMENT S. R. RAJASHEKARA MURTHY, J. - In these writ petitions the petitioner has challenged the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, dated June 4, 1990 made as per annexure A transferring the case of M/s. Sapthagiri Enterprises, Sameerawadi, Bijapur District, the petitioner herein from the file of the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Bijapur to Assistant Commissioner (Intelligence) South Zone, Bangalore to dispose of the assessments for the periods ending June 30, 1988, March 31, 1989 and March 31, 1990. The petitioner has challenged this order of transfer solely on the ground that the Commissioner should have given the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before the said order of transfer was made. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India [1957] 31 ITR 565 in which the validity of section 5(7-A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was challenged. The learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [1976] 102 ITR 281. In the first case the Supreme Court upheld the validity of section 5(7-A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court observed that the power to transfer any case from one Income-tax Officer to another Income-tax officer, conferred on the Commissioner of Income-tax by sub-section (7-A) is only a provision for administrative convenience, which must be exercised in a manner which is not discriminatory. The court also laid down the dicta that it would be prudent if the principles of natural justice are followed, where circumstances permit, before any order of transfer under section 5(7-A) of the Act is made by the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Central Board of Revenue, as the case may be, and notice is given to the party affected and he is afforded a reasonable opportunity of representing his view on the question and the reasons of the order are reduced, however briefly, to writing. In the second case the Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 under which recording of reasons for the transfer of a case is mandatory and such an order must be communicated to the assessee concerned. The Supreme. In the second case the Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 under which recording of reasons for the transfer of a case is mandatory and such an order must be communicated to the assessee concerned. The Supreme. Court approved the observations made by the Supreme Court in Pannalal's case [1957] 31 ITR 565 that it would be prudent and desirable, if the principles of natural justice are followed before an order of transfer is made under section 5(7-A) of the Income-tax Act, in order that a reasonable opportunity is given to the assessee to represent his views on the question as to inconvenience or hardship that may be caused by the proposed order of transfer. The Supreme Court however struck down the order of transfer in that case on the ground of non-communication of the order to the assessee. On the other hand, the order of transfer is sought to be justified by Sri H. L. Dattu, learned Government Advocate relying on the powers conferred on the Commissioner under rule 59 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957. It is argued that the Commissioner has transferred the case to the first respondent after he was authorised by the Government to function as an assessing authority for purposes of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 also, by notification dated March 23, 1990 issued under section 3-B(3)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. A copy of said notification is produced before me. It is also argued that no question of hearing the dealer arises under the scheme of Karnataka Sales Tax Act and the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable. It is pointed out that under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, though recording of reasons is mandatory only non-communication to the assessee was considered by the Supreme Court as fatal. The learned counsel has, in support of his contentions, relied upon the following decisions : (i) Unreported decision of this Court in W.P. No. 499 of 1978 (B. L. Lingade v. State). This Court upheld the power of the Commissioner conferred under section 3-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act read with rule 59 to order transfer of assessment file from one assessing officer to another officer. This Court upheld the power of the Commissioner conferred under section 3-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act read with rule 59 to order transfer of assessment file from one assessing officer to another officer. In the said decision rendered by me on March 2, 1983, an earlier decision of this Court in Jayalaxmi Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (W.P. No. 4801 of 1977) was relied upon. In that case, it was observed by this Court that it is not necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to the dealer before an order of transfer is made by the Commissioner. (ii) Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kalidas Mulji [1985] 58 STC 166. The Bombay High Court took the view that it was not necessary to hear the dealer before a case is transferred from one assessing authority to another officer. It was further observed, on the facts that the transfer in that case did not cause any hardship to the assessee. In this case the petitioner's assessment for the two years have been transferred by the Commissioner in exercise of his power under rule 59 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules to the Assistant Commissioner (Intelligence) Bangalore, for the reasons stated in his order annexure A. The department has agreed, at the request of the petitioner's advocate, to hold the proceedings of assessment at Belgaum. Therefore no prejudice or hardship is caused to the petitioner by the order of transfer and it is not open to a dealer under the Act to question the Commissioner's power to transfer. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.