Disposed

Ensure Developers v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2026WP/101057/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged imposition of 12% Forest Development Tax on timber bought at a Forest Department e-auction, relying on a Division Bench ruling striking down Section 98A. Since appeals were pending before the Supreme Court, the court disposed of the petition, holding demand, collection and refund subject to the pending appeals' outcome.

What did the court decide?

None granted; demand, collection and refund of Forest Development Tax made subject to outcome of pending appeals.

Ensure Developers Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1976 WP No. 101057 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.101057 OF 2026 (GM-FOR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ENSURE DEVELOPERS (MSTC/ENSURE DEVELOPERS/608893) REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER RUPESH SH, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 5^TH CROSS, K H NAGAR, MADDUR TOWN, NEAR GANAPATI, TEMPLE, MADDUR, TQ. MADDUR, DIST. MANDYA, PIN-571428.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE, PIN-560001.

¶14

THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT) ARANY BHAVAN, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003.

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1976 WP No. 101057 of 2026

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, HALIYAL DIVISION, HALIYAL, TQ. HALIYAL, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581329.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, GOVERNMENT TIMBER DEPOT DANDELI, TQ. HALIYAL, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581325.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING IMPUGNED SALE INTIMATION/TAX INVOICE DATED 27.01.2026 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER IN SO FAR AS THE IMPOSING 12% FOREST DEVELOPMENT TAX TO PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-B. B) ISSUE ANY WRIT OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS HON’BLE COURT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1976 WP No. 101057 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶28

prayer:

¶29

“a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing impugned sale intimation/Tax invoice dated: 27.01.2026 issued by the 3^rd respondent in favour of petitioner in so far as the imposing 12% Forest Development Tax to petitioner vide Annexure-B.

¶30

b) Issue any writ or direction as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court on the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice and equity.”

¶31

It is the case of the petitioner that, it has participated

¶32

in the public E-tender cum auction of timber and firewood in Haliyal, which has already been sold through a public E-Tender cum auction notification issued by respondent No.2/Authority. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is surprised to see that respondent No.3/Authority has levied Forest Development Tax to an extent of 12% on the wood purchased by the petitioner through the sale intimation letter dated 27.01.2026, where it is stated that Forest Department Tax was introduced as per Section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1976 WP No. 101057 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

04.10.2017 in the case of Sri B. Rudragouda Vs. State of Karnataka and others¹ held that Section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 is unconstitutional and has struck down the same. The State had challenged the said order before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has only stayed the High Court Order dated 14.10.2017 insofar as refund is concerned. It is submitted that, in the light of the above, there shall be a direction not to levy and there may be direction as prayed for.

¶36

Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted

¶37

that the Hon'ble Apex Court had stayed the refund of the Forest Development Tax collected from the petitioner. Further, she does not dispute the fact that several petitions are disposed of.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The prayer of the petitioner seeking to quash the sale intimation letter as far as imposition of FDT is concerned, in view of the appeal filed by the

¶39

1 AIR 2018 KAR 19

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1976 WP No. 101057 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Government, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. As far as demanding and collecting the Forest Development Tax in respect of the timber and other forest produces, auctions held by the Forest Department and the Government, timber depots across the State of Karnataka are concerned, holding demand, collection and refund of the Forest Development Tax would be subject to the final outcome of W.A.No.743/2021 and connected matter pending before this Court and Civil Appeal Nos. 3974 to 4068 of 2016 and Civil Appeal Nos.3214 to 3271 of 2018 pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶45

ii. All IAs in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶46

Sd/JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶47

¶48

CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Ensure Developers v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ensure Developers 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

Mrs. Meghna W/O Bajaj Nimbalkar Vs the Land Tribunal Chikkodi

K G Siddanagouda S/O Late K G Mahalinganagouda Vs Smt K G Sunitha Wife of Late K G Linganagouda Daughter in Law of Late K G Siddanagouda

Shrishail S/O Maruti Harugeri Vs the Government of Karnataka

Legal Manager, Vs Mohammad Yakub

Sri Malatesh Gudda Pujar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G M Patil Vs the State of Karnataka