S. H. A. RAZA, J. - (1.) By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the Sales Tax Officer, Sector II, Moradabad (respondent No. 2) from taking any proceedings for the assessment year 1984-85 under the U. P. Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act in pursuance of the notice dated July 21, 1998, issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector II, Moradabad. It was further prayed that the Commissioner's order dated September 13, 1985 (annexure C. A. 1) transferring the case from Agra to Moradabad be quashed. Rule 81 of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules authorizes the Commissioner of Sales Tax to transfer any of the case or class of cases at any stage from one assessing authority in a circle to another assessing authority or to any officer subordinate to him. It also provides that the Deputy Commissioner (Executive), or the Assistant Commissioner (Executive) may, subject to the general control of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, also transfer any case or class of cases at any stage from one assessing authority to another assessing authority within his region or, as the case may be, within his range. Undoubtedly the District Moradabad falls within the range of the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) who may transfer the case from Agra to Moradabad but the question which needs to be decided in this petition is as to whether such order of transfer of a case or any class of cases can be done by the Sales Tax Commissioner without giving any notice to the assessee. A similar question cropped up in the case of Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India [1957] 31 ITR 565 (SC) where an identical provision, i. e. , sub-section (7-A) of section 5 of the Indian Income-tax Act was under question which vests a power to the income-tax authorities, to transfer a particular case to another district. The said provision also did not provide that such order can be passed without any notice to the assessee. Under the aforesaid circumstances honourable N. H. Bhagwati, J. , speaking on behalf of Bench indicated : " We may, however, before we leave this topic observe 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 views on the question and the reasons of the order are reduced however briefly to writing. " It was further observed : " If an opportunity is given to the assessee in such case, it is all the more surprising to find that, when an order of transfer under section 5 (7-A) is made transferring the case of the assessee from one Income-tax Officer to another irrespective of the area or locality where he resides or carries on business, he should not be given such an opportunity. There is no presumption against the bona fides or the honesty of an assessee and normally the Income-tax authorities would not be justified in refusing to an assessee a reasonable opportunity of representing his views when any order to the prejudice of the normal procedure laid down in section 64 (1) and (2) of the Act is sought to be made against him. " In the case of C. B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 (SC); 1993 UPTC 163 it was observed : ". . . . . . . . A plain reading of the provisions of the said Chapter XX-C clearly shows that they do not contain any provision for giving the concerned parties an opportunity to be heard before an order for compulsory purchase of the property by the Central Government is made. Courts have generally read into the provisions of the relevant sections a requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made which would have adverse civil consequences for the parties affected. This would be particularly so, in a case where the validity of the section would be open to a serious challenge for want of such an opportunity. It is true that the time-frame within which the order for compulsory purchase has to be made is a fairly tight one but, the urgency is not such as would preclude a reasonable opportunity of being heard or to show cause being given to the parties likely to be adversely affected by an order of purchase under section 269-UD (I ). The enquiry pursuant to the explanation given by the intending purchaser or the intending seller counter attempts to evade tax. " In view of the above we are of the opinion that although rule 81 of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules vests a power to the Commissioner of Sales Tax to transfer a case from one district to another, but that can only be done after the assessee is given a notice. Although, as indicated above rule 81 of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules, do not provide that before transferring any case from one circle to another, the Commissioner shall give the assessee to show cause against the same, but, if we do not read the principle of giving an opportunity to show cause against such transfer by the assessee, the said rule would be arbitrary and discriminatory and hit by article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the same cannot be sustained. It is unfortunate that the assessment proceedings for the year 1984-85 remained under suspension due to an interim order passed by this Court. Such type of writ petition should be disposed of at the initial stage. In view of what we have indicated hereinabove, the writ petition succeeds. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated September 13, 1985 (annexure C. A. 1) passed by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, Lucknow, is issued. However, it will be open for the Commissioner to transfer this case after giving notice to any other district within his range after giving a reasonable opportunity to show cause. Writ petition allowed. .;