S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) A short question that arises for our consideration and decision in this writ petition is whether the commissioner of Commercial Taxes, andhra Pradesh, the 1 st respondent herein acted legally and validly in transferring the appeal to be filed/filed by the petitioner from the Territorial Appellate Deputy commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, hyderabad, the 4th respondent herein to the appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein in purported exercise of the power conferred upon the 1 st respondent under Rule 33 of the Andhra pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short "the APGST Rules" ). ( 2 ) ALTHOUGH this writ petition was listed for admission after notice to the respondents, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for taxes, the writ petition was heard finally. ( 3 ) THE background facts leading to the filing of this writ petition be stated briefly as under: the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "apgst act" ). The petitioner s assessment for the year 1997-98 was completed by the commercial Tax Officer, the 3rd respondent herein by order dated 3-3-2001. Aggrieved by the order of assessment passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner filed appeal and stay application before the 4th respondent who is the Territorial Appellate authority on 16-3-2001. Even before the petitioner filed the appeal and stay application on 16-3-2001, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -1st respondent, passed an order No. RC. CCT/enft. Wing Case No. 5/ cto (i) No. V/2000-2001, on 15-3-2001 which weighed with the Commissioner of commercial Taxes to direct the appeals of m/s. Binjusaria Extractions Limited and m/s. Shalimaa Agro. Tech. Limited involving exemption claims towards consignment sales to be dealt by the 2nd respondent. However, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by the same order dated 15-3-2001 directed that the petitioner s appeal to be filed for the assessment year for 1997-98 under apgst Act should also be dealt by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner on receipt of a copy of the order dated 15-3-2001, filed a letter dated 20-3-2001 before the commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner on receipt of a copy of the order dated 15-3-2001, filed a letter dated 20-3-2001 before the commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The letter reads: "agri Tecg Foods Limited (formerly ITC Agro Tech Limited) the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, andhra Pradesh, hyderabad 20th March, 2001 sir, sub :registration Certificate: APGST no. :pjt/02/l/2174/87-88 1. We have received your order dated 15-3-2001 (on 19-3-2001) in the above reference stipulating that appeals which are originally filed before the Appellate deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta division are transferred to Appellate deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad Rural division, in the interest of revenue. 2. In the first para of the reference, it is stated that Enforcement Wing has taken up investigation of claims of consignment sales of various dealers and that the consignment sales are proved to be fictitious and bogus and levied tax on such transactions. The Hon ble commissioner of Commercial Taxes felt it expedient to transfer the appeals against such orders to Appellate Deputy commissioner, Rural Division for close consideration to the cases in respect of two other dealers and our appeal for 1997-98 (APGST) is clubbed with them. Whlist we cannot and must not comment on the business transactions of the other 2 dealers mentioned in the subject order, we must submit that ours is a international reputed company and our entire business transactions are all strictly within the provisions of APGST Act and/ or CST Act. We attach utmost importance to values, ethics in all our business deals. 3. We submit that as far as we are concerned the order appears to have been issued by mistake in as much as the assessment referred is 1997-98 (APGST) and does not involve issue of consignment sales which arise only in CST cases. Such so called consignment sales are covered by Section 6-A of the CST Act which stipulates transactions otherwise than by way of sale. The assessment order is passed by the Commercial Tax officer, S. D. Road Circle and not by enforcement. There is apparently a mistake and the ciubbing of our case as pertaining to disputed consignment sales through fictitious person is a matter of concern and stigma. The Appellate deputy Commissioner, Rural Division may be unduly influenced by the order and may not be in a position to deal with the case is an unbiased manner. There is apparently a mistake and the ciubbing of our case as pertaining to disputed consignment sales through fictitious person is a matter of concern and stigma. The Appellate deputy Commissioner, Rural Division may be unduly influenced by the order and may not be in a position to deal with the case is an unbiased manner. In fact, we submit that the main issue in our assessment is levy of higher rate of tax on imported oils in respect of which the Hon ble Commissioner of commercial Taxes has directed the relevant assessments to be deferred. ( 4 ) OUR assessment for 1997-98 does not involve any issue relating to so called consignment sales but relates to APGST act only. We, therefore, request your honour to clarify as to whether our appeal has to be dealt by Appellate Deputy Commissioner, panjagutta Division or by Appellate deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad, Rural division since we do not come under the context of your aforesaid order. We look forward to receiving your suitable instructions at an early date. This will help to avoid all sorts of unnecessary controversies and litigations. Thanking you, yours faithfully, for ITC Agro Tech Limited (Now Agro Tech Foods Limited) sd/- authorised Signatory" in the letter, the petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed in violation of the order of the 1st respondent dated 20-2-2001 deferring the assessments; the transfer of its appeal from the file of the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent is erroneous since its assessment does not involve any claim of exemption towards consignment sales; the 2nd respondent will be prejudiced by the order in decision-making. There afterwards, it appears, the petitioner on 23-3-2001 appeared before the 4th respondent and informed him that the hearing of the stay petition may be deferred till the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes clarifies the issue in pursuance of its letter dated 20-3-2001. However, the appeal filed by the petitioner was transferred to the 2nd respondent who issued notice for hearing the stay petition on 28-3-2001. On the said date, the petitioner filed a letter requesting the 2nd respondent to await the clarification of the Commissioner of commercial Taxes herein regarding the correctness of the transfer of appeal. In pursuance of the said request, the 2nd respondent, it is stated, adjourned the hearing of the stay petition to 29-3-2001. On the said date, the petitioner filed a letter requesting the 2nd respondent to await the clarification of the Commissioner of commercial Taxes herein regarding the correctness of the transfer of appeal. In pursuance of the said request, the 2nd respondent, it is stated, adjourned the hearing of the stay petition to 29-3-2001. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner presented this writ petition on 29-3-2001 praying for writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction for quashing the order of the 1st respondent dated 15-3-2001 and for a consequential direction to the territorial appellate authority i. e. , the 4th respondent to hear and dispose of the petitioner s appeal for the assessment year 1997-98 under the APGST Act and pass such other order or orders as the Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 4. This Court on 31-3-2001 admitted the writ petition and passed an interim order in WPMP No. 7450 of 2001 staying collection of disputed tax of Rs. 24,14,875/- being the amount involved in the stay petition in the appeal for the assessment year 1997-98 pending disposal of the writ petition. When the matter stood thus, on 31-3-2001 itself, the Commissioner of Commercial taxes issued another Order RC. CCT/s. Enft. Wing Case No. 5/cto (l) No. V/2000-2001 styled as "endorsement". It reads: "government of Andhra Pradesh commercial Taxes Department office of the Commissioner of commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, hyderabad endorsement sub :apgst and CST Acts - Certain oil millers of Charminar/panjagutta divisions - Preferred appeals before ADC, panjagutta Divn. against the provisional and final Assessment Orders passed - transfer of appeals to ADC, Hyderabad (Rural) division - Orders passed - Certain clarification sought - issued - Regarding. Ref:1. CCT s Enf. Case No. 5/cto (l) no. V/2000, dated 15-3-2001. 2. Letter dated 20-3-2001 from M/s. Agro tech Food Ltd. In the reference first cited, the appeals in respect of three dealers viz. , (1) M/s. Binjusaria Extractions (2) M/s. Shalimar agro Tech and (3) M/s. Agro Tech Foods ltd. , (formerly M/s. ITC Agro-Tech) were ordered to be transferred to appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), hyderabad Rural from the Appellate deputy Commissioner, Punjagutta in the interest of revenue. , (1) M/s. Binjusaria Extractions (2) M/s. Shalimar agro Tech and (3) M/s. Agro Tech Foods ltd. , (formerly M/s. ITC Agro-Tech) were ordered to be transferred to appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), hyderabad Rural from the Appellate deputy Commissioner, Punjagutta in the interest of revenue. M/s. Agro Tech Food Limited (formerly itc Agro Tech) vide the reference second cited have expressed concern that their assessment under APGST for the year 1997-98 does not include consignment sales, and the disputed consignment sales through fictitious persons referred to in para one of the proceedings in the reference first cited, is a matter of concern and stigma to their company. In this connection, it is to inform that as consignment sales are not covered and assessed under APGST Act, it does not automatically refer to the assessment of m/s. Agro Tech Foods Ltd. (formerly m/s. ITC Agro Tech) for the year 1997-98 under APGST Act. Therefore, their concern with regard to the fictitious nature of consignment sales influencing their appeal at Appellate stage does not arise. It is further clarified that the first para relating to fictitious consignment sales does not relate to assessment of m/s. Agro Tech Foods Ltd (formerly m/s. ITC Agro Tech) under APGST Act for the year 1997-98. However, the transfer of appeal in respect of the assessment of the company in question viz. , M/s. Agro Tech foods (formerly M/s. ITC Agro Tech) for the years 1997-98 under APGST Act to ADC Hyderabad rural division done in the interest of revenue, stands undisturbed. Sd/- commissioner of Commercial Taxes to m/s. Agro Foods Ltd. , (formerly M/s. ITC Agro Tech Ltd.), Hyderabad. Copy to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division. Copy to the Deputy Commissioner, panjagutta Division, Hyderabad. Copy to the Commercial Tax Officer, s. D. Road, Hyderabad. // t. c. f. b. o // sd/- manager". The validity of the above order is also sought to be assailed by the petitioner by filing wpmp No. 9801 of 2001. That application was heard and ordered by us separately today. ( 5 ) SRI P. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of commercial Taxes are not only totally arbitrary and unreasonable and without application of mind, but also in violation of the provisions of Rule 33 of the APGST rules. ( 5 ) SRI P. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of commercial Taxes are not only totally arbitrary and unreasonable and without application of mind, but also in violation of the provisions of Rule 33 of the APGST rules. Elaborating the contention, the learned Counsel would contend that even before the petitioner filed appeal and stay application before the territorial appellate authority, the 4th respondent on 16-3-2001, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes passed the impugned order on 15-3-2001, and therefore, that order should be held to be one without authority of law and violative of Rule 33 of the Rules. Attacking the order of the Commissioner of Commercial taxes dated 31-3-2001, the learned counsel would point out that though the commissioner of Commercial Taxes in that order has opined that what is stated in the 1st para relating to fictitious consignment sales does not relate to assessment of the petitioner under APGST Act for the year 1997-98, quite curiously, he has directed that the transfer of appeal of the petitioner for the assessment year for 1997-98 under the APGST Act to the 2nd respondent vide his earlier order dated 15-3-2001 stands undisturbed. The learned Counsel would condemn this action as totally arbitrary and without application of mind. On the other hand, the learned Special Government pleader for Taxes would contend that the point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is a technical contention, and undoubtedly, the Commissioner of commercial Taxes has the power to transfer appeal from one appellate authority to another and that on account of transfer of the petitioner s appeal from the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner did not suffer any prejudice warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 33 of the APGST rules reads: "33. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 33 of the APGST rules reads: "33. (1) Subject to the provisions of section 19, any person aggrieved by an order passed or proceeding recorded under the provisions of the Act by any officer not above the rank of an assistant Commissioner may appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of the area concerned : provided that Commissioner may either suo motu or on application, for reasons to be recorded in writing transfer an appeal pending before an Appellate deputy Commissioner to another appellate Deputy Commissioner and shall communicate the order of transfer to the appellant or petitioner, to every person affected by the order, the authority against whose orders the appeal or petition was preferred, and to the appellate Deputy Commissioner". The provisions of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 33 quite clear, unambiguous and they do not admit more than one meaning. It is quite clear from the above provision that the Commissioner may exercise the power concerned upon him under the proviso and transfer an appeal pending (Emphasis is supplied by the Court) before an Appellate deputy Commissioner to another Appellate deputy Commissioner for reasons to be recorded in writing. In other words, the commissioner can transfer a pending appeal only from one appellate authority to another. The proviso does not confer power on the commissioner to direct that even an appeal to be filed in future should be filed not before the territorial appellate authority, but before some other appellate authority. In the instant case, the petitioner s appeal was not pending as on 15-3-2001. As noticed above, the petitioner filed the appeal and stay application only on 16-3-2001. Therefore, it should be held that the order made by the Commissioner on 15-3-2001 is one without authority of law and violative of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 33 of the APGST Rules. ( 6 ) ADVERTING to the impugned order made by the Commissioner on 31-3-2001, should it be noticed at the threshold that the said endorsement does not refer to the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 16-3-2001. ( 6 ) ADVERTING to the impugned order made by the Commissioner on 31-3-2001, should it be noticed at the threshold that the said endorsement does not refer to the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 16-3-2001. Secondly, since we held that the order of the Commissioner dated 15-3-2001 is one without authority of law and since it does not exist in the eye of law, the Commissioner directing that such non-existing order "stands undisturbed" does not make any sense and it tantamounts to an error of expression. Thirdly, the commissioner having rightly held that the allegation relating to fictitious consignment sales does not relate to the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1997-98 under the provisions of the APGST Act was not justified in transferring the appeal of the petitioner from 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent. No other reasons in support of the impugned action as regards the petitioner are forthcoming from the impugned order dated 31-3-2001 order or for that matter from the order dated 15-3-2001. The rationale behind the insistence that the commissioner should record reasons in writing while transferring an appeal pending before one Appellate Deputy Commissioner to another Appellate Deputy Commissioner, in our considered opinion, is to check arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the Commissioner. In other words, the reasons that may be recorded by the commissioner for transferring an appeal from one authority to another should be valid reasons and for relevant considerations which are germane to the decision-making under the proviso. In other words, the reasons that may be assigned by the commissioner should not be arbitrary, vague or untenable and the reasons should stand judicial scrutiny. The power granted to the commissioner who is the donee of power under Rule 33 of the APGST Rules is a discretionary power and that discretion should be brought to bear on facts and circumstances of each case. Simply because the Commissioner thought it fit to transfer the pending appeals of M/s. Binjusaria extractions Limited and M/s. Shalimar agro Tech Limited to the 2nd respondent from the files of the 4th respondent, the commissioner ought not to have mechanically transferred the appeal of the petitioner also to the 2nd respondent without disclosing any reason much less tenable reason for doing so. Therefore, we find considerable force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders smack of arbitrariness and non-application of mind. ( 7 ) IN the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned proceedings of the commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 15-3-2001 and 31-3-2001 with no order as to costs. However, we make it clear that this order shall not come in the way of commissioner of Commercial Taxes to exercise his discretionary power of transfer under Rule 33 of the APGST Rules, if there is any warrant to do so and if there exist valid grounds and reasons for exercising that discretionary power.