As per case facts, a survey against the petitioner was converted into a search and seizure, which the High Court later quashed due to procedural violations, stating that consequential benefits ... should flow. The respondent's appeal was dismissed. During these proceedings, the petitioner's jurisdiction was transferred from Panchkula to Chandigarh, an action noted to have obtained a "no objection" from the assessee. The petitioner then challenged subsequent notices issued by the transferred authority, contending that the jurisdiction transfer itself was a direct consequence of the illegal search and seizure and therefore void, asserting that his "no objection" was under duress. The question arose whether the transfer of jurisdiction was an independent administrative action or a direct consequence of the quashed search and seizure, thereby invalidating subsequent notices and the transfer itself. Finally, the High Court held that the transfer of jurisdiction was an independent administrative exigency, not a direct consequence of the quashed search and seizure, and thus remained valid. Consequently, the impugned notices were not liable to be quashed.