Wilful disobedience of writ court directions amounted to civil contempt when the disputed demand stayed on the portal for months.

Wilful disobedience of a writ court direction to quash a notice and consequential action was treated as civil contempt where the adverse demand continued to appear on the web portal for about seven months after the order. The court held that deletion only after the contempt proceedings were initiated supported a finding of deliberate non-compliance. Objections based on jurisdiction, change of address, and the absence of a transfer order under the income-tax regime were rejected as no answer to the failure to implement the earlier judicial direction. The court therefore found civil contempt proved and imposed punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent committed civil contempt by wilfully disobeying the writ court's direction to quash the impugned notice and consequential action, and whether the defence of absence of contempt was sustainable.

Analysis: The writ order had conclusively set aside the notice on jurisdictional grounds and also quashed consequential orders. The contempt court found that the outstanding demand continued to remain reflected on the web portal for about seven months despite that direction, and that deletion occurred only after the contempt proceedings brought the lapse to notice. On these facts, the court held that the non-compliance was deliberate and wilful. The objections based on jurisdiction, change of address, and the absence of a transfer order under the income-tax regime were not accepted as a valid answer to the failure to carry out the earlier judicial direction. The court also held that the cited decisions on the limits of contempt jurisdiction did not assist the contemnor on the facts of this case.

Conclusion: The respondent was found guilty of civil contempt and was punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

---