Karnataka High Court
The Kalika vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3962
WP No. 101529 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.101529 OF 2025 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN:
THE KALIKA KRUPA,
REPRESENTED BY NARAYAN S. KAMMAR,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
1411/1, BARDEZ, ANNA WADDO ARADY,
CONDOLIM, NORTH GOA- 403515,
(MSTC/KALIKA KRUPA/562210)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K. H. BAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU- 560 001.
2. THE ADDL. PRINCIPAL CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
ARANYA BHAVAN, 4TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.
ASHPAK 3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
HALIYAL DIVISION, HALIYAL,
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK KASHIMSA
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA - 581 329.
MALAGALADINNI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench
Date: 2025.02.28
12:41:35 +0530
4. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
GOVT. TIMBER DEPOT DANDELI, TQ: DANDELI,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA 581 325.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO , A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE SALE INTIMATION LETTERS BEARING
AUCTION NUMBER MSTC/BLR/ DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
HALIYAL/ACF GOVT. TIMBER D- DANDELI/43/DANDELI/24-25/57776
AND MSTC/BLR/ DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS HALIYAL/ACF
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3962
WP No. 101529 of 2025
GOVT. TIMBER D DANDELI/44/DANDELI/24-25/57778 DATED
24.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 AND 4 INSOFAR AS
12% FOREST DEVELOPMENT TAX IS CONCERNED AT ANNEXURE-B,
BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION, IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
Heard the learned counsel Sri K.H.Bagi on behalf of
the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to
4.
2. Though this matter is listed for preliminary
hearing, with consent of both the parties, same is taken
up for final disposal.
3. The petitioner is seeking to quash the Sale
Intimation letters dated 25.02.2025 issued by respondents
No.3 and 4 insofar as 12% Forest Development Tax is
concerned at Annexure-B.
4. The petitioner has participated in the public
e-Tender-cum-Auction of timber at Dandeli as per the
schedule dated 24.02.2025, which has already been sold
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3962
through a public e-Tender-cum-Auction notification issued
by the 2nd respondent/authority. The petitioner is the
successful bidder of forest products from the respondents
in auction bids by selecting the lots as per e-bills.
Surprisingly, the petitioner received Sale Intimation letters
dated 24.02.2025 issued respondents No.3 and 4 vide
Annexure-B, who levied FDT to an extent of 12% on the
wood purchased by the petitioner. The levy of tax of
Forest Development Tax at 12% is what is questioned by
the petitioner on the ground that it is contrary to law and
also contrary to the judgment rendered by this Court in
Writ Petition No.43937-43938 of 2016 and connected
matters in the case of B.Rudragouda vs. State of
Karnataka and others1.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the
judgment of this Court in B.Rudragouda (supra),
whereby this Court has held that Section 98A of the
Karnataka Forest Act to be ultra vires to the Constitution
AIR 2018 KAR 19
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3962
of India. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment in
the case of National Mineral Development Corporation
Limited vs. State of Karnataka and another2, wherein
it was held that the petitioners therein lease
holders/quarry owners in the forest area are not liable to
pay FDT.
6. In the case of B.Rudragouda (supra), it came
to be held that levy of forest development fee by naming it
as FDT was illegal and accordingly directed to refund.
Therefore the petitioner on the basis of the above
Judgment, seeks for refund of the FDT/Fee.
7. Learned HCGP representing the
respondent/State sustains the order passed by the
authorities and contends that the judgment in the case of
B.Rudragouda (supra) has been challenged before the
Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Nos.4329-4386/2018
and an interim order against refund order of FDT was
granted. Therefore it is contended that the outcome of the
2015 SCC Online Kar 8620
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3962
matters before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would decide
the matters herein.
8. In the present case the petitioner is challenging
the Sale Intimation letters dated 28.11.2024 and
30.11.2024 issued by respondents No.3 and 4 vide
Annexure-B. It is not in dispute that in the case of
B.Rudragouda (supra), the collection of FDT referable to
Chapter-XI-A of the Act inserting section 98-A and B of the
Act came to be declared as ultra vires. Though it is
challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the decision is
not stayed and the interim order is granted only against
refund.
9. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is
disposed of holding demand, collection and refund of FDT
would be subject to final outcome of W.A.No.743/2021
and connected matters pending before this Court and
C.A.Nos.3974-4068/2016 and C.A.Nos.3214-3271/2018,
pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3962
10. The respondents would be at liberty to take
further action only after disposal of the said matters by
issuing fresh demand of tax or take action so far as the
petitioner is concerned, wherever the FDT is already
collected by the respondents.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
RHR/CT-ASC
