Wp(C)/10103/2010 Of The Pang Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer And Othes

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10103 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE PANG SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F.1410, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, PANG, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.), KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIB), COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. MR. JOSE JOSEPH, SC, IT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)No.10109 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ON 25/03/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)No.10109 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) Nos. 10103,10109,10110 & 10227 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25[th] March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners, who are projected as Primary Agricultural Credit Societies, are challenging the sustainability of Ext.P1notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act raisingmany a ground, mainly contending that the petitioners do notcome within the purview of 'person' as defined under Sec.2(31)of the Income Tax Act, nor are they 'Banking Companies' asdefined under the Banking Regulation Act. 2.When similar matters came up for consideration beforethis Court earlier, interference was declined; which led to WritAppeal 2333/2009 and connected cases, leading to Ext.P3judgment; wherein interference was declined; however givingsome specific directions as to the course to be pursued by theIncome Tax authorities. The main point considered was, whether 2 the notice similar to Ext.P1 was issued with 'prior permission' ofthe Director or the Commissioner, as the case may be, and if thenotice did not disclose any such prior permission, the matter wasdirected to be re-examined by the authority concerned and if itwas found that there was no prior permission, furtherproceedings were permitted to be pursued only after obtainingsuch permission. 3.Being aggrieved of the verdict passed by the DivisionBench, the matter has already been taken up before the ApexCourt by filing SLP (C) 3976/2010, which has been admitted, alsogranting interim stay as borne by Ext.P4. This being the position,this Court finds that the respondents are not justified inproceeding with Ext.P1 notice any further, till the matter issettled by the Supreme Court. 4.In the above circumstances, the respondents aredirected to keep all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 inabeyance for the time being and steps shall be pursued onlysubject to final outcome of the SLP now pending consideration W.P.(C) Nos. 10103,10109,10110 & 10227 OF 2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein Ext.P4 interim order has been passed. All the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENONJUDGE lk