The Thenhipalam Service … vs The Income Tax Officer (Cib) on 3 August, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24232 of 2010(D)


1. THE THENHIPALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1.  THE INCOME TAX OFFICER  (CIB)
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIB)

4. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :03/08/2010

 O R D E R
                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                     W.P. (C) Nos. 24232, 24234
                            & 24270 of 2010
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
               Dated, this the 3rd day of August, 2010

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioners in all these cases 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 the term ‘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 No.

2333 of 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

W.P. (C) Nos. 24232, 24234 & 24270 of 2010

: 2 :

filing SLP (C) No. 3976 of 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 Honourable Supreme

Court.

The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

kmd