TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2026 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 789 of 2026 along with In Person Application (L) No. 1657 of 2026. The Petitioner has primarily prayed for holding the Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 singly, jointly and severally liable for contempt of Courts and for punishment in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 and/or 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. Heard the Contempt Petition finally, with the consent of the parties. 3. Mr. Goldie, the Petitioner In Person has at the outset drawn our attention to the order of this Court dated 21st January 2026. He alleges gross contempt of this Court by the Respondents, particularly, for violation of the directions contained in paragraph Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a contempt proceeding. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have carefully perused the order dated 21st January 2026 of which, contempt is alleged by the Petitioner, against the Respondents. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the said order :- "1. We have heard the petitioner, Goldie Sud, in person. The only prayer made in this petition is required to be noted, which reads thus:- "a) Providing to the Petitioner and/or all Arriving International Passengers, option to make it's / their Truthful Declaration online / via Internet to comply with Section 77 of Customs Act 1962 and Baggage Rules thereto." 2. Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 is very clear which provides for a declaration by the owner of the baggage to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so arises, in the event the situation so requires, as the present petition is confined only in regard to the limited prayer (supra) being considered qua the petitioner only. 7. The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations. No costs." 8. We have noted that the Petitioner has alleged contempt, inter alia, of Paragraph 1 of the order dated 21st January 2026 of which the Petitioner alleges defiance by the Respondent. In this regard, we may observe that this Court has in its introductory paragraph merely reproduced the prayer of the Petitioner in the proceeding before it. 9. The Court in the said order in paragraph No. 3 has primarily observed that it is the obligation of the authorities to accept....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order dated 21st January 2026 has not been complied with, much less willfully disobeyed by the Respondents, so as to constitute 'contempt' as envisaged under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 13. Considering the above, we do not find any of the ingredients of the 'civil contempt', as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, being attracted in this case. In our opinion, there is no wilful, deliberate and/or intentional disobedience of the judgment/order passed by this Court, by the Respondents, so as to justify taking action against them under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In view thereof, the question of invoking jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which provides for punishment for....