Wp(C)/21431/2010 Of The Amarambalam Service Co-Op.bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer (Cib)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21431 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE AMARAMBALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F.1099, POOKKOTTUMPADAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB), O/O.THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTNAT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, 8TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN NORTH, BLOCK, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CIB),COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. R1 TO R3 BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, S.C, R4 BY SRI. T.P.M. IBRAHIM KHAN, A.S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 21479/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 21431 OF 2010, 21533 OF 2010,21538 OF 2010, 21539 OF 2010, 21543 OF 2010,21463 OF 2010 AND 21479 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12[th] day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners in all these cases are challenging the sustainabilityof Ext.P1 notice, issued under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act,raising many a ground, mainly contending that the petitioners do not comewithin the purview 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 by the aggrieved parties before the WP(C) Nos. 21431/2010 & Conn. Cases Apex Court, by filing SLP (C)3976/2010, which has been admitted, alsogranting interim stay. This being the position, this Court finds that therespondents are not justified in proceeding with Ext.P1 notice any further,till the issue is settled by the Hon'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 further steps shall be pursued only subject to the outcome of theSLP, now pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. All the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. dnc P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENONJUDGE