Wp(C)/13276/2011 Of Muttathara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Director Of Income Tax(Cib) & Anothe

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH MAY 2011 / 20TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13276 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MUTTATHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.T 413, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 8. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.K.R.RIJA SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), KOCHI-682018. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110001. R1 & R2 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.13276 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10[th] day of May, 2011JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the sustainability of Exhibit P1 noticeissued under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, raising many aground, mainly contending that the petitioner does not come within thepurview of 'person' as defined under the Income Tax Act. 2. When similar matters came up for consideration before thisCourt earlier, interference was declined; which led to Writ Appeal2333/2009 and connected cases, upholding the verdict passed by thelearned Single Judge; however giving some specific directions as to thecourse to be pursued by the Income Tax authorities. The main pointconsidered was, whether the notice similar to Ext.P1 was issued withprior permission' of the Director or the Commissioner, as the case maybe, and if the notice did not disclose any such prior permission, thematter was directed to be re-examined by the authority concerned and ifit was found that there was no prior permission, further proceedingswere permitted to be pursued only after obtaining such permission. WP(C).13276/11 - 2 - 3. Being aggrieved of the verdict passed by the DivisionBench, the matter has already been taken up by the aggrievedparties before the Apex Court, by filing SLP(C).3976/2010, which hasbeen admitted, also granting interim stay. This being the position,this Court finds that the respondents are not justified in proceedingwith Exhibit P1 notice any further, till the issue is settled by theHon'ble Supreme Court. 4. In the above circumstances, the respondents are directed tokeep all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 in abeyance forthe time being and further steps shall be pursued only subject to theoutcome of othe SLP, now pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE vgs