- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2440 WP No. 100866 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100866 OF 2025 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN: CHANDRAKANTH S/O RAJAPPA MEDAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. :BUSINESS, R/O BADAS K.H. KHALSA, BELGAUM. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.GAYATRI S.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE PRINCIPALCHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, ARAYA BHAVAN, 4TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 560003. 3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTM ARAYA BHAVAN, 4TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 560003. 4. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, GOVT. TIMBER DEPOT DHARWAD DIVISION, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2440 WP No. 100866 of 2025 DHARWAD DIVISION, FOREST COMPOUND, DHARWAD 580008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHARAD V MAGADUM, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING TAX INVOICES DATED 24.01.2025, 27.01.2025, 30.01.2025 AND 04.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B TO ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR AS 12 FOREST DEVELOPMENT TAX IS CONCERNED, THE SAID COPIES ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B TO ANNEXURE-E; B) PASS SUCH OTHER WRIT OR ORDERS OR DIRECTION MAY DEEM FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, BE ISSUED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. Heard the learned counsel Smt. Gayatri S.R. appearing on behalf of Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondent- State. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties in unison would submit that, the issue in the lis stands - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2440 WP No. 100866 of 2025 answered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.104423/2024, disposed of on 25th July, 2024. The Coordinate Bench has held as follows: “1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the action of the respondents in collecting Forest Development Tax (FDT) on the purchase of timber. 2. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in its judgment dated 23.04.2024 in W.P.No.101820/2024 and connected matters, held that the demand, collection, and refund of FDT would be subject to the final outcome of W.A.No.743/2021 and related cases pending before this Court. Relevant paragraphs from the judgment are as follows: “3.It was submitted, B.Rudragouda Vs. State of Karnataka and others1, wherein there was specific challenge against constitutional validity of Act no.23 of 2016 amending Chapter XI-A of Act, this Court declared amendment to be ultra vires Constitution of India. It was observed, levy of Forest Development Fee (for short ‘FDF’) by naming it as tax (FDT) was illegal and accordingly directed refund. 4. Main grounds of challenge are that though respondent- State had challenged Judgment in B.Rudragouda’s case before Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) no.4329- 4326/2018, interim order granted was only insofar as refund of tax and not judgment. Further, in W.P.no.38941/2018, this Court by order dated 29.08.2019 quashed invoices demanding FDT after decision in NMDC 1 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 2785 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2440 WP No. 100866 of 2025 Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka and another2 and B Rudragouda’s cases, by holding same to be illegal. In view of above it was contended that demand and levy of FDT was illegal and sought for quashing. It was submitted, in few cases petitioners had already paid FDT and on above grounds were seeking refund thereof.” 3. Sri V.S.Kalasurmath, learned HCGP contended that the decision in the NMDC case is under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLA(C) Nos.6219- 6313/2016 [C.A.No.3974-4068/2016] while the decision in B. Rudragouda’s case is under challenge in SLP (Civil) No. 4329-4386/2018 [C.A.No.3214-3271/2018] with an interim order against refund of FDT. The decision in W.P.No.38941/2018 is also under challenge in W.A.No.743/2021, with an interim order against the demand/collection of FDT/FDF. 4. After hearing learned counsel and reviewing the writ petition records, it is clear that petitioners are challenging the demand and collection of FDT on timber purchases. There is no dispute that the demand/collection of FDT refers to Chapter XI-A inserting Sections 98-A and B of the Act, declared ultra vires in B. Rudragouda’s case. Although challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the decision is not stayed, and the interim order applies only to refunds. Similarly, an interim order exists against the demand and collection of FDT in the appeal against the decision in W.P.No.38941/2018. 2 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 8620 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2440 WP No. 100866 of 2025 5. Given the above, it is prudent to dispose of these matters, holding that the demand, collection, and refund of FDT are subject to the final outcomes of W.A.No.743/2021 and connected cases pending before this Court, and C.A.No.3974-4068/2016 and C.A.No.3214-3271/2018 pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Respondent authorities should take further action only after these matters are resolved, issuing fresh demands or processing refunds where FDT has already been collected. 6. In light of the Co-ordinate Bench’s view in W.P.No.101820/ 2024, this Court is not inclined to take a contrary position. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, holding that the demand, collection, and refund of FDT will be subject to the final outcome of W.A.No.743/2021 and related cases pending before this Court, and C.A.No.3974-4068/2016 and C.A.No.3214- 3271/2018 pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. It is needless to mention that respondent authorities can take further action only after these matters are resolved, by issuing fresh demands or taking action for refunds where FDT has already been collected from the petitioners. ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The demand, collection, and refund of Forest Development Tax (FDT) are to be subject to the final outcome of W.A.No.743/2021 and related matters - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2440 WP No. 100866 of 2025 pending before this Court, and C.A.No.3974-4068/2016 and C.A.No.3214-3271/2018 pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. iii) Respondent authorities shall take further action only after the disposal of the aforementioned cases, either by issuing fresh demands or processing refunds where FDT has already been collected from the petitioners.” 3. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The demand, collection, and refund of Forest Development Tax (FDT) are to be subject to the final outcome of W.A.No.743/2021 and related matters pending before this Court, and C.A.No.3974-4068/2016 and C.A.No.3214- 3271/2018 pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. iii. Respondent authorities shall take further action only after the disposal of the aforementioned cases, either by issuing fresh demands or processing refunds where FDT has already been collected from the petitioners. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP /List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52