Wilful disobedience and jurisdictional non-compliance can support prima facie contempt when assessment action continues despite a binding writ order.

A binding writ order that conclusively held the assessing authority lacked jurisdiction over the assessee required compliance with the statutory procedure under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Continued assessment action and persistence of the consequential demand on the portal despite that direction were treated as capable of showing deliberate non-compliance. On that basis, the court found prima facie wilful disobedience sufficient to justify framing contempt charges, and charges were framed against the respondent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's conduct disclosed prima facie wilful disobedience of the writ court's order so as to justify framing of contempt charges.

Analysis: The writ court's order was treated as a clear determination that the assessing authority at Lucknow lacked jurisdiction over the assessee and that, once jurisdiction was questioned, the matter ought to have been referred in accordance with the statutory scheme under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The order further recorded that the assessment proceedings and demand reflected on the portal were pursued despite the earlier judicial direction. On this basis, the conduct was found to be capable of constituting deliberate non-compliance with the binding order, at least at the stage of framing charge.

Conclusion: Prima facie contempt was made out and charges were framed against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a binding writ order has conclusively determined lack of jurisdiction and required compliance with the statutory procedure, continuation of assessment action or persistence of consequential demand despite that order may constitute prima facie wilful disobedience for contempt purposes.

---