The Pang Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd vs The Income Tax Officer (Cib) on 25 March, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

The Pang Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd vs The Income Tax Officer (Cib) on 25 March, 2010

Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 10103 of 2010(K)


1. THE PANG SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB),
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIB),

4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :25/03/2010

 O R D E R
                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
            ..............................................................................

            W.P.(C) Nos. 10103,10109,10110 &

                                  10227 OF 2010

             .........................................................................
                      Dated this the 25th March, 2010



                                  J U D G M E N T

The petitioners, who are projected as Primary Agricultural Credit Societies, 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 Sec.2(31) of the Income Tax Act, nor are they 'Banking Companies' as defined under the Banking Regulation 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, leading to Ext.P3 judgment; wherein interference was declined; however giving some specific directions as to the course to be pursued by the Income Tax authorities. The main point considered was, whether W.P.(C) Nos. 10103,10109,10110 & 10227 OF 2010 2 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 before the Apex Court by filing SLP (C) 3976/2010, which has been admitted, also granting interim stay as borne by Ext.P4. This being the position, this Court finds that the respondents are not justified in proceeding with Ext.P1 notice any further, till the matter is settled by the 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 steps shall be pursued only subject to final outcome of the SLP now pending consideration W.P.(C) Nos. 10103,10109,10110 & 10227 OF 2010 3 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein Ext.P4 interim order has been passed.

All the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court