IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33520 of 2010(L) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THE TIRUVALI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F 1403, THIRUVALI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL, SRI.A.V.JAMES. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------ 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB), O/O. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, 8TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN NORTH BLOCK, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIB), COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 33520 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Contention of the petitioner is that being a Co-operative Society, the petitioner will not come within the purview of the definition of “person” contained in the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The dispute now stands covered by judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.2333 of 2009 and connected cases (dated 24-11-2009). While upholding that, institutions like that of the petitioner will come within the purview of 133(6), this Court observed that notices shall be issued only with prior permission of the Director or the Commissioner, as the case may be, and if the notices did not disclose any such permission, the matter need be considered afresh by the authority concerned. 2. It is brought to my notice that the judgment cited above has already been taken up in appeal, as S.L.P.(C) W.P.(C) No. 33520/2010 2 No.3976/2010 before the Honourable Supreme Court. The S.L.P. was admitted and interim stay was granted against operation of the said judgment. 3. The position being so, it is not proper for the respondents to proceed with further steps pursuant to Ext.P1 notice. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P1, reserving liberty of the respondents to pursue further steps depending on outcome of the matter pending before the Honourable Supreme Court. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.