IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 299 of 2009(I) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- KONNI REGIONAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.NO.3833, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVALLA RANGE, THIRUVALLA. 3. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, KOTTAYAM. BY SC ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 299 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Petitioner is a Co-operative Society. Petitioner challenges Ext.P6. In the meantime, petitioner preferred a revision and it culminated in Ext.P4 order. The Commissioner directed grant of relief on two counts. The consequential order is Ext.P5 series in respect of three years. Refunds were found due. By Ext.P6 impugned order what the Tax Recovery Officer has done is after making the adjustments against various demands, an amount of Rs.10,12,737/- is shown as payable by the petitioner against the outstanding liabilities under Sections 271(1)(c), 271 B and 220 for various years. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sunil Jacob Jose and also Sri.Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Income Tax Department. 3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the orders of demand are not even produced before this court. He also submits that as of now no garnishee order has been issued. WPC.299/2009. 2 4. Case of the petitioner is that petitioner is entitled to waiver of penalty under Section 273A and further submits that petitioner has also moved the authority under Section 273A. 5. Challenge to Ext.P6 may not lie as it is essentially based on the orders of penalty, which are in turn not even produced or challenged before me. The challenge therefore is to a consequential demand, which is impermissible in law. In such circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition is dismissed. However, this will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek relief in any other forum. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb