IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH MAY 2011 / 20TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13276 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MUTTATHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.T 413, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 8. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.K.R.RIJA SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), KOCHI-682018. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110001. R1 & R2 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.13276 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the sustainability of Exhibit P1 notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, raising many a ground, mainly contending that the petitioner does 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. WP(C).13276/11 - 2 - 3. Being aggrieved of the verdict passed by the Division Bench, the matter has already been taken up by the aggrieved parties before the 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 Exhibit 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 Exhibit P1 in abeyance for the time being and further steps shall be pursued only subject to the outcome of othe SLP, now pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE vgs