- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14326 WP No. 107854 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 107854 OF 2025 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN: TVJ MINERAL PROCESSING PROJECTS PVT. LTD., R/BY AUTHORIZED MANAGER/DIRECTOR JAGADEESHA T.V. AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: LEGAL MANAGER R/O: NO.59/1A, SRIGANDHA NAGAR, KONICA GARMENTS ROAD, HEGGANAHALLI, BENGALURU, DIST: BENGALURU- 581346. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, M.S. BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU- 560001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU- 560003. 3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, YELLAPUR DIVISION, YELLAPUR, RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Date: 2025.10.31 06:27:46 +0000 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14326 WP No. 107854 of 2025 TQ: YELLAPUR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA- 581359. 4. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, GOVERNMENT TIMBER DEPOT MUNDGOD, TQ: MUNDGOD, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA- 581349. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALSURMATH, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO, I. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED SALE INTIMATION MAIL LETTERS DATED 18.08.2025 (4.00PM), 18.08.2025 (5.25PM), 19.08.2025 (10.24AM), 19.08.2025 (1.14PM) VIDE ANNEXURE B, C, D AND E RESPECTIVELY, IN SO FAR AS 12% FDT IS CONCERNED, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, II. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 TO REFUND THE FDT AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF 12% COLLECTED ON TOTAL MATERIAL VALUE AS PER SALE INTIMATION MAIL LETTERS DATED 18.08.2025 (4.00PM), 18.08.2025 (5.25PM), 19.08.2025 (10.24AM), 19.08.2025 (1.14PM) VIDE ANNEXURE B, C, D AND E RESPECTIVELY. III. ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT AND PROPER BE ISSUED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14326 WP No. 107854 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.101529/2025, disposed off on 27th February, 2025. The Coordinate Bench of this Court held as follows: “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 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14326 WP No. 107854 of 2025 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 others. 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 of India. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment in the case of National Mineral Development Corporation Limited vs. State of Karnataka and another , 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 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14326 WP No. 107854 of 2025 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. 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.” 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 AC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73