Subsisting stay orders must be obeyed; executive officers cannot act contrary to them and must seek modification or review.

A notice demanding security issued during the operation of an interim stay on further assessment proceedings was inconsistent with the subsisting court order and was treated as contemptuous. The court reiterated that an executive authority cannot act on its own view of a stay order's correctness or scope; if relief from the order is required, the proper course is to seek review, variation, modification, or appeal. Although the conduct was held contemptuous, the unconditional apology was accepted because it was not shown to be driven by mala fides or ulterior motive, and the matter was closed without further action.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice demanding security, issued despite an interim stay of further assessment proceedings, constituted contempt of Court, and whether the unconditional apology tendered by the respondents should be accepted.

Analysis: The interim stay restrained further assessment proceedings in respect of the challenged item in the Second Schedule pending disposal of the writ petitions. The subsequent notice demanded security on the footing that the petitioner was liable to tax under the very provisions whose validity had been challenged and in respect of which the stay operated. The notice was therefore inconsistent with the subsisting order of stay and amounted to contempt. At the same time, the conduct was not shown to be actuated by mala fides or ulterior motive, and the apology was treated as arising from misguided zeal to protect revenue interests.

Conclusion: The notice was held to be contemptuous, but the unconditional apology was accepted and no further action was taken.

Final Conclusion: The contempt proceedings were closed after accepting the respondents' apology, while reiterating that executive officers must seek modification or review of a court order and cannot act contrary to it on their own assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: An executive authority cannot disregard or act inconsistently with a subsisting court order on its own view of the order's correctness; if a modification is required, the proper course is to seek review, variation, or appeal.

---