The Wandoor Service Co-Operative vs The Income Tax Officer (Cib) on 29 July, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23744 of 2010(P)


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

                        Vs



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

2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

4. UNION OF INDIA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :29/07/2010

 O R D E R
                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