Disposed

The Superior Wood Works v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024WP/105140/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order disposed of a writ petition challenging the levy of Forest Development Fee. Noting pending matters before the Apex Court regarding refunds in connected appeals, the court held that demand, collection, and refund are subject to the final outcome of those pending appeals.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that respondents await the final outcome of connected appeals before the Apex Court and Writ Appellate Court before acting on demand or refunds.

The Superior Wood Works Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12863 WP No. 105140 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 105140 OF 2024 (GM-FOR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE SUPERIOR WOOD WORKS AT MARATIKOPPA, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI (U.K)

¶10

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. MARIYAN SALVADOR RODRIGUES, A/A 50 YEARS, R/O. MINTI GALLI, HOUSE NO.76, T.S.S. ROAD, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 402.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHAGOWDA J. & SMT. CHITRA GOUNDALKAR ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S. BUILDING, 4^TH FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE), ARANYA BHAVAN, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-56003.

¶18

THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, CANARA CIRCLE, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 401.

¶19

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12863 WP No. 105140 of 2024

¶21

YELLAPUR DIVISION, YELLAPUR-581359.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND PASS AN ORDER TO DECLARE THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND ITS AUTHORITIES/RESPONDENTS CANNOT LEVY, DEMAND AND COLLECT ‘FOREST DEVELOPMENT FEE’ AT THE RATE OF 12% OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT UNDER SEC.98(A) OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT. 1963 IN RESPECT OF THE TIMBER AND OTHER FOREST PRODUCES AUCTIONED/SOLD BY THE FOREST DEPARTMENT IN DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT DEPOTS IN KARNATAKA IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON’BLE COURT ON 4- 10-2017 IN THE CASE OF SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA V/S STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS REPORTED IN AIR 2018 KAR 19, CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ANNEXURES-F TO F-28, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; TO KINDLY PASS ANY WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-G IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

¶28

Heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the learned

¶29

AGA for respondent.

¶30

Counsel for petitioner would contend that the writ

¶31

petition is filed praying this Court to pass writ in the nature of certiorari and pass an order to declare that the State Government and its authorities/respondents cannot

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12863 WP No. 105140 of 2024

¶33

levy, demand and collect ‘forest development fee’ at the rate of 12% of the sale consideration amount under Section 98(a) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 in respect of the timber and other forest produces auctioned/sold by the forest department in different Government depots in Karnataka in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 04.10.2017 in the case of Sri. B. Rudragouda vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in AIR 2018 KAR 19, consequently quash the Annexures-F to F-28 and to pass any writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider the representation given by the petitioner which is marked as Annexure-G and pas such other order.

¶34

The counsel relying upon the judgment in the case of B. Rudragouwda vide Annexure-B also produced Annexures-C and D wherein also an order has been passed that petitioner therein shall be entitled for refund of the amount. Counsel also submit that respondents have already collected an amount of Rs.4,68,910/- and also

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12863 WP No. 105140 of 2024

¶36

issued Annexures-F series to meet the payment. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the same in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Court in Sri b. Rudragouda case.

¶37

Per contra, learned AGA would submit that this Court in series of connected matters in W.P. No.101820/2024 disposed of on 23.04.2024, having taken note of the judgment in the case of B. Rudragrouda and also having taken note of the factual aspect disposed of the writ petitions 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 Apex Court and also observed that it would be needless to mention that respondent authorities would take further action only after disposal of the said matters by issuing

¶38

fresh demand or take action for refund insofar as petitioner herein is concerned, wherever FDT is already

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12863 WP No. 105140 of 2024

¶40

collected by respondents. Learned AGA would submit that this writ petition may be disposed of with such direction.

¶41

Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the learned AGA, taken note of Annexures-B, C and D and also the judgment referred by the learned AGA W.P. No.101820/2024 disposed of on 23.04.2024. When the matter is ceased before the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to refund of amount is concerned and in B. Rudragouda’s case, this Court passed an order to refund the amount which was collected as FDT in respect of timber and other forest produces from respondents. The same has been questioned and a decision is not yet taken by the Apex Court and only interim order has granted only against refund of the amount as observed in paragraph 7 of the judgment in W.P.No.101820/2024 and connected matters. Taking into note of the paragraph 8 of the judgment in the aforesaid writ petition wherein observation is made that the matter is pending before the Writ Appellate Court as well as before the Apex Court, it is needless to mention that respondent authorities would

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12863 WP No. 105140 of 2024

¶43

take further action only after the disposal of the said matters by issuing fresh demand or take action for refund insofar as petitioner herein is concerned, wherever FDT is already collected by the respondents, this writ petition is accordingly 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

¶44

this Court and C.A.Nos.3974-4068/2016 and C.A.Nos.3214-3271/2018 pending before the Apex Court.

¶45

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶46

NAA CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

The Superior Wood Works v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Superior Wood Works v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankramma W/O Manjappa Karidyamannanavar Vs Savita W/O Rudragouda Puttanagoudru

Shri. Appalal Hussainsab Zadwale Vs Smt. Mamataj W/O Omohiddin Mulla

Sri Veerarudra Vividha Uddeshagala Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt.Rohini W/O Ashok Bhat Vs Smt.Bharati Anilkumar Bhat

B Jhansi Lakshmi W/O K Nagabhushan Vs State of Karnataka

P D Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka