Karnataka High Court
M/S Slr Metaliks Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2016
Author: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
Bench: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.4524 OF 2016 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN :
M/s. SLR METALIKS LTD.
SY.NO.632, NARAYANDEVARAKERE
LOKAPPANAHOLA
NEAR MARIYAMMANAHALLI
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TALUK
BELLARY 583 222
REPRESENTED BY ITS CAO
COL O.P.NEHRA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
SON OF SRI.RAN SINGH ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
2
ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 003
3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY CIRCLE
BELLARY - 583 102
4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS
BELLARY DIVISION
BELLARY - 583 102
5. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
BY ITS CHAIRMAN
DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
'KHANIJA BHAVAN'
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001 .. RESPONDENTS
(SRI.Y.H.VIJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
R1 TO R4
SRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
---
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to declare that the
respondents are not entitled to demand and collect forest
development tax under Section 98-A of the Karnataka Forest
Act, 1963, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, and etc.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day,
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE made the following:
3
ORDER
Issue notice.
2. Mr.Y.H.Vijay Kumar, learned additional government advocate accepts notice for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.M.Keshava Reddy, learned advocate accepts notice for the respondent No.5.
3. It is alleged by the writ petitioner - Company that they are the purchasers of iron ore from the private lessees and, also, from Mysore Minerals Limited.
4. In view of our decision in Writ Petition No.2642 of 2009 dated December 3, 2015, the State Government is not entitled to claim forest development tax from persons, who had purchased iron ore from the private lessees and the State Government is not entitled to claim forest development tax more than 8% per centum from the persons, who had purchased iron ore from Mysore Minerals Limited.
5. Thus, we direct the authorities not to demand forest development tax from the petitioner - Company, when it had 4 purchased iron ore from the private lessees. If it purchases iron ore from Mysore Minerals Limited, the State Government shall not claim more than 8% per centum of the forest development tax.
6. We, thus, dispose of the writ petition directing the refund of the forest development tax collected from the writ petitioner - Company insofar as its purchases in relation to private lessees are concerned and to refund the tax in excess of 8% per centum of the forest development tax, which has been collected from it in relation to the purchases from Mysore Minerals Limited.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE RV