Wp(C)/9955/2010 Of The Kadannamanna 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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9955 of 2010(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER :- ------------------- THE KADANNAMANNA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVEBANK LTD.NO.10561, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT,P.O.KADANNAMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENTS :- ---------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB),OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.),KOZHIKODE.OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.),KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRETOR OF INCOME TAX,KOZHIKODE.KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIB),COCHIN, ERNAKULAM.COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 4. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THESECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI.SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. STANDING COUNSEL MR.T.M.JOSEPHASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, ALONG WITH WP(C)Nos.9956, 10003 & 10004 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JVT P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W.P.(C).Nos. 9955, 9956, 10003 & 10004 of 2010~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Dated this the 24[th] day of March, 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T The petitioners are challenging the sustainability ofExt.P1 notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Income TaxAct, raising many a ground, mainly contending that thepetitioner does not come within the purview of 'person' asdefined under the Income Tax Act. 2.When similar matters came up for considerationbefore this Court earlier, interference was declined; which ledto Writ Appeal 2333/2009 and connected cases, leading toExt.P3 judgment; upholding the verdict passed by thelearned Single Judge; however giving some specific directionsas to the course to be pursued by the Income Tax authorities.The main point considered was, whether the notice similar toExt.P1 was issued 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 directed tobe re-examined by the authority concerned and if it was found W.P.(C).Nos. 9955, 9956, 10003 & 10004 of 2010 2 that there was no prior permission, further proceedings werepermitted to be pursued only after obtaining such permission. 3.Being aggrieved of the verdict passed by theDivision Bench, the matter has already been taken up beforethe Apex Court by filing SLP (C) 3976/2010, which has beenadmitted, also granting interim stay as borne by Ext.P4. Thisbeing the position, this Court finds that the respondents arenot justified 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.P1 inabeyance for the time being and steps shall be pursued onlysubject to the final outcome of the SLP now pendingconsideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereinExt.P4 interim order has been passed. All the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE