Kerala High Court
The Amarambalam Service Co-Op.Bank Ltd vs The Income Tax Officer(Cib) on 12 July, 2010
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21431 of 2010(D)
1. THE AMARAMBALAM SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(CIB),
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTNAT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
4. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :12/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
--------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 21431 OF 2010, 21533 OF 2010,
21538 OF 2010, 21539 OF 2010, 21543 OF 2010,
21463 OF 2010 AND 21479 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in all these cases 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 do not come within the purview of 'person' as defined under the Income Tax Act.
2. When similar matters came up for consideration before this Court earlier, interference was declined; which led 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 to be pursued by the Income Tax authorities. The main point considered was, whether the notice similar to Ext.P1 was issued with 'prior permission' of the Director or the Commissioner, as the case may be, and if the notice did not disclose any such prior permission, the matter was directed to be re-examined by the authority concerned and if it was found that there was no prior permission, further proceedings were permitted to be pursued only after obtaining such permission.
3. Being aggrieved of the verdict passed by the Division Bench, the matter has already been taken up by the aggrieved parties before the 2 WP(C) Nos. 21431/2010 & Conn. Cases Apex Court, by filing SLP (C)3976/2010, which has been admitted, also granting interim stay. This being the position, this Court finds that the respondents are not justified in proceeding with Ext.P1 notice any further, till the issue is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. In the above circumstances, the respondents are directed to keep all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 in abeyance for the time being and further steps shall be pursued only subject to the outcome of the SLP, now pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
All the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc