Wp(C)/27892/2010 Of The Peruvallur Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 27892 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- THE PERUVALLUR SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., NO.D.1979, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, PARAMBILPEEDIKA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB), OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INV), KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, 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 4 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27892 of 2010(J) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX----------------PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS -------------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.09.2009 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE STAY ORDER IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.3976 OF 2010AND CONNECTED CASES. EXT.P3. COPY of the JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2010 IN WP(C) NO.10717 OF 2010 OF 2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TOJUDGE VK C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J -------------------------------WP(C) NO. 27892 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11[th] day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT A primary Agricultural Credit Society is thepetitioner in this Writ Petition. Challenge is againstExt.P1 notice issued under Section 133 (6) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, based on a contention that the petitionerwill not come within the purview of 'person' as definedunder the Income Tax Act. The matter now standscovered against the petitioner through decision of aDivision Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 2333/2009 andconnected cases. It was clarified in that judgment thatnotices similar to Ext.P1 can be issued with priorpermission of the Director or Commissioner of the IncomeTax, as the case may be. This Court directed that if suchnotices already issued does not disclose such priorpermission, then the authority concerned can issue freshnotice after detaining such permission. But it is pointedout that the above said decision was taken up before the WP(C) No. 27892/2010 Hon'ble Supreme Court and SLP (C) No. 3976/2010 filed inthis regard stands admitted and an interim stay was alreadygranted against operation of the judgment. Therefore I amof the opinion that the respondents are not justified inproceeding with Ext.P1 notice and further steps, pendingdisposal of the matter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2.In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition isdisposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyanceall further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1, subject to finaloutcome of the matter pending before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt. dnc C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE