IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36254 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE KONDOTTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.D.1937, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, KONDOTTY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB), OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INV.), KOZHIKODE – 673 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE – 673 001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIB), COCHIN, ERNAKULAM – 13. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI – 1. R1 TO R4 BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 36255/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.36254,36255,36256, 36278,36288 & 36289 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioners in these cases are Service Co-operative Societies registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act. Challenge is against sustainability of notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, interalia on the basis of the contention that, the petitioners are not 'persons' coming within the purview of Income Tax Act. 2. The issue was subject matter of challenge before this Court in a batch of writ petitions, which ultimately culminated in a judgment of a Division Bench, in W.A.No.2333 of 2009 and connected cases. This Court upheld the validity of similar notices, however, making it clear that such notices can be issued only with prior permission of the Director or the Commissioner, as the case may 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 be pursued only after obtaining such permissions. W.P.(C).36254/10 & conn. cases -2- 3. It is brought to my notice that Special Leave Petition filed against the above said judgment as SLP(C) No.3976 of 2010 has already been admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and an interim stay was granted against operation of the judgment of the Division Bench. This being the position, I am of the view that the authorities of the Income Tax Department concerned are not justified in proceeding with issuing similar notices to the petitioners herein, till the issue is finally settled by the apex court. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, these writ petitions are allowed and the respondents concerned are directed to keep in abeyance all further steps pursuant to the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, for the time being. It is made clear that steps can be pursued only subject to final outcome of the matter now pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P(C) No.3976 of 2010 and connected cases. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb