JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. Sustainability of exhibit P1 notice issued by the first Respondent seeking for certain details from the Petitioner societies forms the subject-matter of challenge in all these cases. 2. For convenience of reference, the particulars on which details have been sought for, as given in exhibit P1 are extracted hereunder: 1. Details of quarterly returns filed for the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2. Details of payment made towards interest (above Rs. 5,000/-) for the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. 3. Copy of the profit and loss account and balance-sheet for the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. 3. It is further stated in exhibit P1 that, if the addressee has failed to deduct/collect the tax at source and remit the tax to the Central Government account, the addressee is also required to show cause in writing as to: 1. Why the Assessee should not be treated as in default u/s 201(1) in respect of non-deduction/short deduction of tax, 2. Why interest u/s 201(1A) should not be charged, and 3. Why penal action u/s 271C should not be initiated. 4. The Petitioners have been asked to appear before the authority concerned, with liberty to file a written reply and also to intimate whether any "personal hearing" is required for the above purpose. As mentioned above, sustainability of exhibit P1 notice is under challenge, on different grounds: --Firstly, that the issuing authority/first Respondent does not have any jurisdiction or competence to issue exhibit P1 --Secondly, that the notice is in violation of the dictum laid down by the apex court Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. Secretary, Government of India and Others,. --Thirdly, that the Petitioner will not come within the purview of the definition of "banking company" as made clear by the apex court in Greater Bombay Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. United Yarn Tex. Pvt. Ltd. and Others,. --Fourthly, that the Petitioner is not a "person" as defined under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and --Fifthly, that Section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act in ultra vires the Constitution of India and is liable to be struck down. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and also the learned standing counsel for the Department at length. 6. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and also the learned standing counsel for the Department at length. 6. At the very outset, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners conceded that the challenge raised in all these writ petitions referring to Section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act defining the term "person" stands covered against the Petitioners and hence that the same is not pressed. Thus, the remaining contentions are confined mainly as to the sustainability of the notice, particularly referring to the mandate under the "second proviso" to Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act ("Act" in short), i.e., whether the said notices have been issued after obtaining the "prior permission" of the Director or the Commissioner, as the case may be. 7. Exhibit P1 notices do not mention anything as to the "prior permission" as above and hence all the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the basic requirement u/s 133(6) has not been satisfied; which, however, is chosen to be rebutted from the part of the Respondents, stating that exhibit P1 notice is not issued u/s 133 and that, it has been issued with specific reference to the circumstances relating to Section 201(1), 201(1A) and Section 271C; which stands entirely on a different footing. This being the position, the learned standing counsel for the Department submits that the issuing authority is not bound to obtain any "prior permission" from the Commissioner or Director, as the case may be. The scope of Section 133(6) had come up for consideration before this Court earlier and a decision was rendered in favour of the Revenue; sustaining the notices issued. Later, the matter was taken up in appeal, whereby the Department was permitted to proceed with further steps, in respect of the cases where no reference is made in the notice as to the "prior permission", after verifying the records and if there was no permission, then to proceed further only after obtaining such permission from the concerned authority; vide common judgment dated November 24, 2009 in W.A. No. 2654 of 2009 and connected cases. It is stated during the course of hearing, that the above verdict has been subjected to challenge by filing SLP before the hon'ble Supreme Court and as per the order dated February 15, 2010 in SLP (Civil) No. 3976 of 2010, the apex court has admitted the matter, issuing notice to the Respondents, also granting interim stay of the impugned verdict until further orders. 8. Obviously, the pleadings in the above batch of the writ petitions have been moulded in such a manner, as if exhibit P1 notice had been issued by the concerned authority u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, seeking for intervention in so far as no "prior approval" of the Director/Commissioner was obtained before issuance of such notices. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that this is the only provision under which any information could have been gathered from persons like the Petitioners and this being the position, satisfaction of the requirement as contemplated under the second proviso to Sub-section (6) of Section 133 is very much mandatory. This being the position, there is absolutely no rationale on the part of the Respondents in proceeding with further steps pursuant to exhibit P1 notice, submits the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 9. Sri Jose Joseph, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Respondents, submits that the idea and understanding of the Petitioners, that exhibit P1 notice has been issued u/s 133(6) of the Act, is quite wrong and misconceived. As evident from exhibit P1 reference has been made only to Sections 201(1), 201(1A) and 271C of the Act. The scope and applicability of the above provisions stand entirely on a different pedestal and is totally unconnected with the scope and applicability of Section 133, submits the learned standing counsel. 10. In support of exhibit P1 notice, the learned standing counsel submits that the power and procedure u/s 201 is an in-built one and that the Departmental authority will be justified in passing an order u/s 201 only after getting necessary clarification from the party concerned. In other words, before passing any order, the Departmental authority has to comply with the principles of natural justice, which is an in-built mechanism of almost all similar provisions. In other words, before passing any order, the Departmental authority has to comply with the principles of natural justice, which is an in-built mechanism of almost all similar provisions. Even though no separate notice is contemplated or mentioned u/s 201, the provision envisages passing an "order", which is very much discernible from the fact that a specific remedy by way of "appeal" is provided u/s 246(1)(i), which refers to an "order" to be passed by the authority concerned u/s 201. As it stands so, the action pursued by the Respondent in having issued exhibit P1 notice, calling for the requisite information and materials to be supplied by persons like the Petitioners is perfectly within the four walls of the law; submits the learned standing counsel. Further, reliance is also placed on the power vested on the "authority" u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, for giving effect to the provisions of the Act, which is equivalent to the powers of the civil court, as referred to therein. The learned standing counsel further submits that the mandate u/s 133(6) will be attracted, only if it is "not in the course of" any "enquiry" or any "proceeding" is pending; whereas in the instant case, even going by the undisputed facts, a "proceeding" is pending and enquiry is going on, as borne by exhibit P1 notice itself, with regard to the scope of adjudication u/s 201 and this being the position, the bar under the "second proviso" to Sub-section (6) of Section 133 is not attracted to the case in hand. 11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the hurdle placed by virtue of the "second proviso" cannot be restricted to Sub-section (6) alone and the same has to be applied to the entire provision. It is contended that the authority, if at all desirous of collecting any materials, with regard to "interest" and such other particulars as specifically mentioned under Sub-section (4) of Section 133, necessary permission ought to have been obtained from the Director or the Commissioner, as the case may be, and in view of the conspicuous non-mentioning of the sanction as above in exhibit P1 notice, the proceeding is not liable to be pursued any further, more so, in view of the interim stay granted by the apex court with regard to the course and procedure prescribed by the Division Bench of this Court as stated hereinbefore. 12. Absolutely no pleadings are there, raising any challenge against the applicability of the provisions u/s 201, 201(1A) or the consequential steps to be followed in accordance with the mandate u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act. On the other hand, the case has been moulded placing more reliance on the pleading that the Petitioner does not constitute a "person" as defined u/s 2(31) of the Act; that the said provision is ultra vires the Constitution of India and hence is liable to be struck down from the Income tax Act. But in view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the contention raised in the writ petitions in this regard is not intended to be pressed any further, this Court is not required to consider or entertain the same and it is answered against the Petitioners. 13. Now, the remaining question is, whether exhibit P1 is a notice issued by the authority concerned u/s 133(6) or under some other circumstances. If it is issued u/s 133(6), obviously the requirement under the "second proviso" has to be satisfied and the decision rendered by the Division Bench cannot be of any help to the Revenue, particularly in view of the interim order of stay granted by the apex court during the pendency of the appeal. But going by the contents of exhibit P1 it is explicitly clear that no reference has been made to Section 133 and the information has been called for, in connection with the proceedings to be pursued under Sections 201(1), 201(1A) and 271C. 14. Exhibit P1 notice consists of two separate parts; the first part dealing with the requirement made to furnish the details of the quarterly returns filed in the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09; the details of payments made towards interest (above Rs. 5,000) for the financial years as above; and copy of the profit and loss account and balance-sheets for the above financial years. The second part of the said notice refer to a circumstance, when there was any "failure" on the part of the Assessees/persons like the Petitioners with regard to the deduction/collection of tax at source or remittance of the tax to the Central Government account. The second part of the said notice refer to a circumstance, when there was any "failure" on the part of the Assessees/persons like the Petitioners with regard to the deduction/collection of tax at source or remittance of the tax to the Central Government account. Only if the "failure" is admitted, the party is required to show cause in writing as to (1) why appropriate action should not be initiated for the default u/s 201(1) with regard to the deduction; (2) why interest u/s 201(1A) should not be charged; and (3) why penal action u/s 271C should not be initiated. It is in the above circumstance, that the Petitioner has been required to furnish the relevant materials also making it clear that, if any "personal hearing" was insisted, the party could appear before the issuing authority or through an authorised representative on the specified date, also calling for a written reply as specified. 15. To furnish the particulars as per the "first part" of exhibit P1 it clearly comes within the power of the authority concerned, as vested u/s 131. This is all the more so, since the Petitioners do not have a case that the authority who issued exhibit P1 does not come within the purview of any of the authorities named in Section 131. If only the Department/authority is not satisfied with the explanation to be offered by the persons like the Petitioners, with regard to the points 1 to 3 under the "first limb" of exhibit P1 it will lead to a situation for further steps with regard to the points 1 to 3 mentioned in the "second limb" of exhibit P1 (unless the "failure" is admitted). This is of course, without prejudice to the right of appeal as clearly provided u/s 246(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act. In short, the requirement to furnish the materials as per item Nos. 1 to 3 of exhibit P1 notice is not liable to be categorised as an instance coming within the purview of Section 133(6) to have any restrictive hurdle as provided under the "second proviso" there under, requiring prior sanction by the Director/Commissioner, as the case may be. In short, the requirement to furnish the materials as per item Nos. 1 to 3 of exhibit P1 notice is not liable to be categorised as an instance coming within the purview of Section 133(6) to have any restrictive hurdle as provided under the "second proviso" there under, requiring prior sanction by the Director/Commissioner, as the case may be. For the very same reason, the reliance placed on the appeal pending before the apex court and the interim order granted with regard to the course and procedure prescribed by the Division Bench of this Court, does not come to the rescue of the Petitioners. The Petitioners are bound to supply the requisite materials and are at liberty to substantiate that they are not liable to be proceeded with as contemplated u/s 201(1), 201(1A) or 271C, as the case may be. The Petitioners are also at liberty to raise appropriate contentions and substantiate before the concerned authority who issued exhibit P1, if the transaction comes within the purview of "exemption" under any of the provisions of the statute. The opportunity granted by the issuing authority to the Petitioners to substantiate the position cannot be regarded as a situation detrimental to the interest of the Petitioners in any manner. 16. In the above facts and circumstances, the challenge raised against the impugned notices fails. No interference is called for. All the writ petitions are dismissed accordingly.