IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15122 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE ARIYALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ARIYALLUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.SOUDAMINI, D/O.GOPALAN, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'GOKULAM', ARIYALLUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.ARIYALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB), OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INV), KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIB) COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 15122 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is 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 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. 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 2 WP(C) No. 15122/2010 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 Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc