- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16198 WP No. 108804 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 108804 OF 2025 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN: M/S SAJON CLAY INDUSTRIES, BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. HARSH SHARAD KESHKAMATH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT. FLAT NO. 501, SHANTADURGA RESIDENCY, 2ND MAIN, 11TH CROSS, SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. T. BANGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M S BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 003. 3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS TIMBER DEPOT DANDELI, TQ. DANDELI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, PIN 581325. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16198 WP No. 108804 of 2025 4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS HALIYAL RANGE FOREST OFFICE, TQ AND DIST: UTTARA KANNADA, PIN 581 359. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF DECLARATION OR DIRECTION THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS LEVYING FOREST DEVELOPMENT TAX/FEES UNDER SECTION 98-A OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP NO. 43937-38 OF 2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND REFUND THE TAX LEVIED UPON THE PETITIONER, AND. ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE TAX INVOICE 1070103/15-06-2024/7 DATED 21.06.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO. 4 AND INSOFAR AS LEVYING 12% FDT. ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTIONS TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16198 WP No. 108804 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the parties in unison would submit that, the issue in the lis stands covered by judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.101820/2024 and connected matters, disposed off on 23rd April 2024. The Coordinate Bench of this Court held as follows: “All these writ petitions involve common question of law i.e., challenge of demand, levy and collection of Forest Development Tax (for short ‘FDT’) by respondentState/Forest Authorities on purchases of timber by petitioners. Therefore, they were clubbed, heard and taken up for disposal together. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners were regularly purchasing timber from Forest Department by participating in e-auctions. It was submitted, respondents introduced amendments to Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short ‘Act’) by inserting Chapter XI-A and adding Sections 98-A and 98-B of Act providing for levy of FDT. However, said provisions came to be challenged before this Court in National Mineral Development Corporation Limited Vs State of Karnataka and Another1 (‘NMDC’ for short), wherein it was held that petitioners lease holders/quari owners in forest areas as not liable to pay FDT. 3. It was submitted, B.Rudragouda Vs State of Karnataka and others2 , 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16198 WP No. 108804 of 2025 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.4329-4386/2018, 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 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. 5. On other hand, Sri Gangadhar J.M., learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Sri Madanmohan M.Khannur, learned Additional Government Advocate, sought to contend that decision in NMDC case was under challenge before Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLA (C) nos.6219- 6313/2016 [C.A.No.3974-4068/2016] while decision in B’Rudragouda’s case was under challenge in SLP (Civil) no.4329-4386/2018 [C.A.No.3214-3271/2018] and interim order against refund of FDT was granted. It was further submitted, decision in W.P.no.38941/2018, was challenged in W.A.no.743/2021, wherein interim order against demand/collection of FDT/FDF was granted. It was submitted, in view of above, all cases which would be subject to outcome of matters before Hon’ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition records. 7. From above, it is seen that petitioners are challenging demand and collection of FDT on purchases of timber from respondents. There is no dispute that demand/collection of FDT is referable to Chapter XI-A inserting Sections 98-A and B of Act, which is held ultra vires in B.Rudragouda’s case and though same is challenged before Hon’ble Apex Court, decision is not stayed and interim order is granted only against refund. Likewise, even in appeal filed against decision in W.P.no.38941/2018, there is interim order against demand and collection of FDT. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16198 WP No. 108804 of 2025 8. In view of above, instead of keeping these matters pending, writ petitions are 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.No.3974-4068/2016 and C.A.No.3214- 3271/2018, pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court. It would be needless to mention that respondent authorities would take further action only after disposal of said matters by issuing fresh demand or take action for refund insofar as petitioners herein are concerned, wherever FDT is already collected by respondents.” 2. In the light of the issue standing covered by the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra), on all its fours and on the same reasons, the subject petition also stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 104