Wp(C)/35416/2010 Of The Kuzhimanna Service Co-Operative Bank v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35416 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- THE KUZHIMANNA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.D.1899, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT KUZHIMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTIRCT. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 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, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. JOSE JOSEPH, SC. INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, ALONG WITH WPC. NO. 35418/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) Nos.35416/2010, 35417/2010,35418/2010, 35431/2010 & 35465/2010 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29[th] day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these cases are Service Co- operative Societies registered under the provisions of theKerala Co-operative Societies Act. Challenge is againstsustainability of notices issued under Section 133(6) of theIncome Tax Act, interalia on the basis of the contentionthat, the petitioners are not 'persons' coming within thepurview of Income Tax Act. 2.The issue was subject matter of challenge beforethis Court in a batch of writ petitions, which ultimatelyculminated in a judgment of a Division Bench, inW.A.No.2333 of 2009 and connected cases. This Courtupheld the validity of similar notices, however, making itclear that such notices can be issued only with priorpermission of the Director or the Commissioner, as the casemay be, and clarified that if such notices does not disclose such prior permission the matter need be re-examined by the authority concerned and further proceedings shall bepursued only after obtaining such permissions. 3.It is brought to my notice that Special LeavePetition filed against the above said judgment as SLP(C)No.3976 of 2010 has already been admitted by the Hon'bleSupreme Court and an interim stay was granted againstoperation of the judgment of the Division Bench. This beingthe position, I am of the view that the authorities of theIncome Tax Department concerned are not justified inproceeding with issuing similar notices to the petitionersherein, till the issue is finally settled by the apex court. 4.Under the above mentioned circumstances, thesewrit petitions are allowed and the respondents concernedare directed to keep in abeyance all further steps pursuantto the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the IncomeTax Act, for the time being. It is made clear that steps canbe pursued only subject to final outcome of the matter now 35418/2010, 35431/2010 & 35465/20103 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P(C)No.3976 of 2010 and connected cases. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIMJUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab