Wilful disobedience of a clear jurisdiction order through continued assessment action amounted to civil contempt.

A clear and unambiguous writ order on jurisdiction had to be obeyed in its true tenor: the Lucknow tax authority lacked jurisdiction over the assessee, and any jurisdictional doubt was to be referred to the competent authority under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Continuing assessment proceedings and keeping the consequential demand reflected on the income-tax portal were treated as continuation of the same disobedient conduct. The defence that a later assessment year stood on a separate footing was rejected, as the jurisdictional direction was held to govern the matter. On the facts found, the conduct was deliberate and wilful, and civil contempt was proved.

---

---

Issues: Whether the contemnor committed civil contempt by disregarding the earlier writ order on jurisdiction, continuing assessment proceedings, and allowing the consequential demand to remain reflected on the income-tax portal.

Analysis: The earlier writ order was treated as clear and not confined to a narrow year-specific controversy, but as one determining that the Lucknow tax authority lacked jurisdiction over the assessee and that any jurisdictional doubt ought to have been referred to the competent authority under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The contempt court also treated the continued assessment action and persistence of the demand on the web portal as consequences flowing from the same disobedient conduct. It rejected the defence that the later assessment year stood on a separate footing, holding that the order's jurisdictional direction governed the situation and could not be reinterpreted by the contemnor. On the facts found, the conduct was held to be deliberate and wilful, attracting civil contempt.

Conclusion: The charge of contempt was proved and the contemnor was held guilty under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Ratio Decidendi: A clear and unambiguous court order on jurisdiction must be obeyed in its true tenor, and a public authority cannot avoid compliance by reinterpreting that order or by continuing consequential action that defeats it; wilful disobedience of such an order constitutes civil contempt.

---