- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13096-DB WP No. 6449 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 6449 OF 2026 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN: 1. SRI G. THRIMURTHULU @ GANDROJU TRIMURTHULU S/O TAARAO AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF M/S VENKATESHWARA TIMBER DEPOT RAGHUDEVAPURAM VILLAGE SEETHANAGARAM MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DIST ANDRAPRADESH - 533 287 …PETITIONER (BY SRI MURALI M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEAPARMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13096-DB WP No. 6449 of 2026 (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE) ARANAYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003 3. KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATKA UNDERTAKING) REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REG. OFFICE AT VANA VIKAS 1ST FLOOR, 18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003 4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS HALIYAL DIVISION, HALIYALA UTTARA KANNADA DIST PIN - 581 329 5. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS DANDELI DIVISION, DANDELI UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT PIN - 581 329 6. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS KOPPA DIVISON, KOPPA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 126 7. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST BELAGAVI DIVISION BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 590 003 8. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST VIRAJPET DIVISION VIRAJPET, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 237 9. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SIRSI DIVISION, SIRSI UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 402 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13096-DB WP No. 6449 of 2026 10. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST YELLAPURA DIVISION UTTARA KANANDA DISTRICT - 581 359 11. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS KARWAR DIVISION, KARWAR UTTARA KANNADA DIST - 581 301 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-2 & R-4 TO R-11) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR ITS AUTHORITIES i.e., RESPONDENTS NOT TO LEVY, DEMAND AND COLLECT FOREST DEVELOPMENT TAX/FEE, FROM THE PETITIONER AT THE RATE OF 12% ON THE SALE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 98-A(1) OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT- 1963 IN RESPECT OF TIMBER AND OTHER FOREST PRODUCE AUCTIONED/SOLD BY THE FOREST DEPARTMENT IN DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT DEPOTS IN KARNATAKA, IN VIEW OF JUDGMENT RENDERED BY DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE CASE OF B.RUDRAGOUDA AND OTHERS VS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS REPORTED IN AIR 2018 KAR 19 & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13096-DB WP No. 6449 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the respondents-authorities be directed not to levy, demand and collect Forest Development Tax/Fee [FDT] from the petitioner on the sale consideration amount, under Section 98-A(1) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, in respect of timber and other forest produce auctioned or being sold by the Forest Department. 2. This Court had in B.Rudragouda v. State of Karnataka and others1 declared the amendment to Chapter XI-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, as ultra vires the Constitution of India. The levy of FDT was declared as illegal and accordingly, the parties were directed to refund the FDT collected. The said decision is subject matter of the challenge before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.3974-4068/2016 and this Court is informed that interim order has been granted staying the directions for refund of FDT. 1 2017 SCC Online Kar 2785 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13096-DB WP No. 6449 of 2026 3. Concededly the respondents cannot collect any FDT since Section 98-A of the Karnataka Forest Act is struck down. 4. The learned AGA points out that several refund petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 23.04.20242. The operative part of the said order reads as under: "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. 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." 5. In the given facts, we consider it apposite to dispose of the above petition by directing that the impugned demand would be 2 WP No.101820/2024 and connected matters (NC:2024:KHC-D:6783) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13096-DB WP No. 6449 of 2026 subject to outcome of the Civil Appeal Nos.3974-4068/2016. In the event the State prevails in the Supreme Court, and the validity of Section 98-A of the Karnataka Forest Act is upheld, the respondents would be at liberty to enforce the said impugned demand. 6. Insofar as the petitioner's claim for refund of FDT is concerned, the same would also follow the decision rendered by the Supreme Court. We do not consider it apposite to issue any directions in this regard considering that the Supreme Court has passed an interim order staying the directions for refund of FDT. 7. We, however, clarify that in the event, the State does not prevail in the Supreme Court, the FDT as collected would be liable to be refunded. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9