Wp(C)/22036/2010 Of The Mangattidom Service Co-Operative v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22036 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MANGATTIDOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, MANGATTIDOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.SHEELA, W/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 48 YEARS RESIDING AT 'SARANYA' MALUR PO, THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (CIB) OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) KOZHIKODE 673 001 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) KOZHIKODE 673 001 . 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIB) COCHIN, ERNAKULAM 682 013. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, ALONG WITH WPC.22044/2010 AND OTHERS THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) Nos.22036, 22044, 22051, 22053, 22124, 22132 and 22152 of 2010 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 15[th] day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are challenging the sustainability of Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act,raising many a ground, mainly contending that the petitioners donot come within the purview of 'person' as defined under theIncome Tax Act. 2.When similar matters came up for consideration beforethis Court earlier, interference was declined; which led to WritAppeal No.2333/2009 and connected cases, upholding the verdictpassed by the learned Single Judge; however giving some specificdirections as to the course to be pursued by the Income Taxauthorities. The main point considered was, whether the noticesimilar to Ext.P1 was issued with 'prior permission' of the Directoror the Commissioner, as the case may be, and if the notice did notdisclose any such prior permission, the matter was directed to bere-examined by the authority concerned and if it was found thatthere was no prior permission, further proceedings were permitted WPC.22036/2010 & Connected cases to be pursued only after obtaining such permission. 3.Being aggrieved of the verdict passed by the DivisionBench, the matter has already been taken up by the concernedparty before the Apex Court by filing SLP(C) No.3976/2010, whichhas been admitted, also granting interim stay. This being theposition, this Court finds that the respondents are not justified inproceeding with Ext.P1 notice any further, till the issue is settledby the Hon'ble 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 the outcome of the SLP now pending considerationbefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. aks (P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE)