Writ refund compliance cannot be avoided by another case's stay or later statutory change, the text notes.

A writ directing refund of duty remains binding until varied or stayed in the same proceedings, and a stay in another matter does not suspend compliance. The text notes that Section 11B, introduced after the extended compliance period had already expired, could not be invoked to excuse non-compliance where no variation of the existing order was sought. It further states that failure to refund even the admitted amount, coupled with continued resistance to compliance, was treated as wilful disobedience supporting contempt, and that later reliance on Section 11B did not cure a default already committed after expiry of the court-fixed time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents were entitled to extension of time to comply with the writ directing refund of duty on the ground of an ad interim stay granted by the Supreme Court in another matter and the introduction of Section 11B; (ii) Whether the respondents' failure to make the refund within the time fixed amounted to contempt for wilful disobedience of the Court's order.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents were entitled to extension of time to comply with the writ directing refund of duty on the ground of an ad interim stay granted by the Supreme Court in another matter and the introduction of Section 11B.

Analysis: The writ directing refund had attained finality and had to be obeyed within the time fixed by the Court. A stay granted in another matter did not suspend or neutralise the present writ. Section 11B came into force only after the extended time had already expired, and the respondents did not seek any variation of the existing order before relying on that provision.

Conclusion: The request for extension of time was rejected, and the respondents remained bound to comply with the refund direction.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents' failure to make the refund within the time fixed amounted to contempt for wilful disobedience of the Court's order.

Analysis: The respondents did not pay even the admitted amount and continued to resist compliance. Their conduct showed a deliberate refusal to obey the writ, and the subsequent invocation of Section 11B did not erase the default already committed after expiry of the time granted by the Court.

Conclusion: The respondents were held guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience, and the officer concerned was penalised.

Final Conclusion: The Court enforced the refund direction, rejected the respondents' attempt to avoid compliance, and upheld contempt action for breach of its writ.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of refund must be obeyed within the time fixed by the Court, and a later statutory amendment or an interim order in another case does not automatically suspend or extinguish liability to comply unless the existing order is first varied or stayed in the same proceedings.

---