I.S. Tiwana, J.
1. The petitioner-firm which is carrying on business of sale and purchase of unginned cotton and sell the same in the form of cotton and cotton seed after ginning it, impugns the notice dated 19th September, 1973 (annexure A), issued by the Additional Excise and Taxation Officer, Bhatinda, whereby the said firm has been directed to pay the tax on sale of khal within seven days from the receipt of that communication and failing which the petitioner would be subjected to imposition of penalty in accordance with the provisions of law. Though this notice has been challenged on a number of grounds yet the learned counsel concedes that for the one ground that the Additional Excise and Taxation Officer, Bhatinda, has no jurisdiction to issue this notice, the rest of the points raised by him in the petition stand settled against him. The sole ground of this challenge is that in normal course and in accordance with the provisions of the statute and the Rules framed thereunder, it is only the District Excise and Taxation Officer, Ludhiana, within whose jurisdiction the petitioner-firm is carrying on its business, who is competent to deal with the case of the petitioner, i.e., the assessment of sales tax for the year 1971-72. The learned counsel further contends that even though the Additional Excise and Taxation Officer, Bhatinda, the officer issuing the impugned notice, has been given jurisdiction throughout the State of Punjab, but unless a particular case is transferred to his file by any competent authority by passing a legal and valid order, this officer cannot assume jurisdiction in the matter. It is the admitted case of the respondents, that it is respondent No. 2, that is, the Excise and Taxation Officer, Ludhiana, who on his own has transferred the file of the petitioner's case to respondent No. 3, i.e., the Additional Excise and Taxation Officer, Bhatinda. In support of his above-noted contention the learned counsel seeks a firm reliance on an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kishan Chand and Co. v. S.K. Jain (1965) 67 PLR 465. On the other hand, the respondent-authorities have raised a plea to the effect that the notice (annexure A) is not a notice for completion of the assessment proceedings in the case of the petitioner, but it is only that he has been called upon to deposit the tax on the sale of khal which he has not been depositing in view of some doubt with regard to the imposition of sales tax on this commodity. But, since according to the respondents, this matter stood settled in Copra Crushing Oil Mills, Phagwara gate, Jullundur v. State of Punjab 1973 RLR 699, respondent No. 3 is well within his jurisdiction to call upon the petitioner to deposit the tax. It is difficult to follow the logic or reasoning adopted by the respondent-authorities in saying that this notice (annexure A) is not during the course of assessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner in spite of the fact that the notice specifically says that in case of failure of the petitioner to deposit the tax, he would be liable to the payment of penalty. It is clear from the written statement that this notice has been issued subsequent to the receipt of the assessment file of the petitioner by respondent No. 3 from the office of respondent No. 2. Thus, it is patent that this notice formed part of that file. Otherwise also, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-authorities is not in a position to show as to under which provision of law this notice (annexure A) can be treated to be an independent proceeding not relating to the assessment of tax against the petitioner. Thus, I am satisfied that the impugned notice (annexure A) has been issued during the course of proceedings for the assessment of tax against the petitioner for the year 1971-72. If this is so-as it is-then the case of the petitioner is clearly supported by the above-noted judgment of this Court in Kishan Chand's case (1965) 67 PLR 465 wherein on similar facts it has been ruled that unless there is a proper or lawful order transferring the petitioner's assessment proceedings or file from the records of the appropriate authorities, i.e., the Assessing Authority, who is dealing with the case in the normal course, the additional hand who, though had been conferred jurisdiction throughout the State, cannot deal with that. Thus, keeping in view the ratio of this judgment, this impugned notice (annexure A) cannot possibly be sustained. I, therefore, quash the same and allow the petition to that extent. I, however, make no order as to costs.