Wp(C)/23744/2010 Of The Wandoor Service Co-Operative Bank v. The Income Tax Officer, (Cib)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23744 of 2010(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE WANDOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.M.387, WANDOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL, SRI.A.V.JAMES. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB), O/O. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT 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 R4 BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, S.C, I.T. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 23763/2010 &/23745 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= WP(C) NOs. 23744, 23745 & 23763/2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 28[th] day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners in these writ petitions are challengingthe sustainability of Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, raising many a ground, mainlycontending that the petitioners do not come within thepurview of 'person' as defined under the Income Tax Act. 2.When similar matters came up for considerationbefore this Court earlier, interference was declined; whichled to Writ Appeal 2333/2009 and connected cases,upholding the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge;however giving some specific directions as to the course tobe pursued by the Income Tax authorities. The main pointconsidered was, whether the notice similar to Ext.P1 wasissued with 'prior permission' of the Director or theCommissioner, as the case may be, and if the notice did notdisclose any such prior permission, the matter was directedto be re-examined by the authority concerned and if it wasfound that there was no prior permission, further W.P.(C) No. 23744/2010 & con. cases 2 proceedings were permitted to be pursued only afterobtaining such permission. 3. Being aggrieved of the verdict passed by the Division Bench, the matter has already been taken upbefore the Apex Court by filing SLP (C)3976/2010, whichhas been admitted, also granting interim stay. This beingthe position, this Court finds that the respondents are notjustified in proceeding with Ext.P1 notice any further, tillthe issue is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4.In the above circumstances, the respondents aredirected to keep all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1in abeyance for the time being and steps shall be pursuedonly subject to the final outcome of the SLP now pendingconsideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereininterim order has been passed. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. mn P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,JUDGE