IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23744 of 2010(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE WANDOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.M.387, WANDOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL, SRI.A.V.JAMES. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 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 R4 BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, S.C, I.T. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 23763/2010 &/23745 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= WP(C) NOs. 23744, 23745 & 23763/2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners in these writ petitions 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 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 W.P.(C) No. 23744/2010 & con. cases 2 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. This being the position, this Court finds that the respondents are not justified in proceeding with Ext.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 Ext.P1 in abeyance for the time being and steps shall be pursued only subject to the final outcome of the SLP now pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein interim order has been passed. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE mn