IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23870 of 2010(G)
1. THE PERUMANNA KLARI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB), OFFICE OF
... 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 :30/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 23870, 23871, 23872, 23873, 23874, 23875,
23876, 23905, 23906, 23907, 23908, 23909,
23910, 23911 & 23924 OF 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners challenge 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 proceedings were permitted to be
pursued only after obtaining such permission.
3. Being aggrieved of the verdict passed by the Division
WPC No.23870/2010 & Conn. cases
2
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)
vps
WPC No.23870/2010 & Conn. cases
3
WPC No.23870/2010 & Conn. cases
4