Wp(C)/15122/2010 Of The Ariyallur Service Co-Op.bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15122 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE ARIYALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ARIYALLUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.SOUDAMINI, D/O.GOPALAN, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'GOKULAM', ARIYALLUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.ARIYALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB), OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INV), KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIB) COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 15122 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18[th] day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the sustainability of Ext.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 with 'priorpermission' of the Director or the Commissioner, as the case may be, andif the notice did not disclose any such prior permission, the matter wasdirected to be re-examined by the authority concerned and if it was foundthat there was no prior permission, further proceedings were permitted tobe pursued only after obtaining such permission. 3.Being aggrieved of the verdict passed by the Division Bench,the matter has already been taken up before the Apex Court by filing SLP(C)3976/2010, which has been admitted, also granting interim stay. This WP(C) No. 15122/2010 being the position, this Court finds that the respondents are not justified inproceeding with Ext.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 Ext.P1 in abeyance for the timebeing and steps shall be pursued only subject to the final outcome of theSLP now pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,wherein interim order has been passed. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. dnc P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENONJUDGE