High Court of Karnataka Hears Consolidated Writ Petitions Challenging Forest Development Tax Imposed on Mining Operations — Petitions Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India Seek to Declare Notification Ultra Vires and Quash Demand Notices. The petitioners contended that Section 98A of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the Notification dated 16.08.2008 were unconstitutional and not applicable to mining leases on non-forest lands.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The High Court of Karnataka heard a batch of writ petitions filed by various mining companies, individuals, and an industry association challenging the levy of Forest Development Tax under Section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The petitioners, including National Mineral Development Corporation Limited (NMDC), Vedanta Limited, and others, sought declarations that the Notification dated 16.08.2008 issued by the State Government and the consequential demand notices were ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the legislative competence of the State. The core grievance was that the imposition of Forest Development Tax on mining leases, particularly those on non-forest lands, violated Article 246 read with Entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. The petitioners also contended that the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 were being contravened. The matters were argued before a Division Bench of the High Court, which reserved its judgment on 3rd December 2015.

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Notification dated 27.08.2008 issued under Section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 is ultra vires the Constitution and whether forest development tax can be levied on mining operations?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (KAR) (12) 34

W.P. Nos. 2642/2009 and connected petitions (44793/2013, 13595/2008, 13516/2008, 13654/2008, 13803/2008, 14157/2008, 14802/2008, 30927/2008, and many others)

2015-12-03

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, Acting Chief Justice and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

For Petitioners: K. Raghavacharyulu, D.R. Ravishankar, Udaya Holla, K.N. Phanindra, D.L.N. Rao; For Respondents: Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, Advocate General with A.S. Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General and Y.H. Vijay Kumar, Additional Government Advocate

National Mineral Development Corporation Limited (NMDC) & Others (multiple petitioners)

State of Karnataka & Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of a State Notification levying Forest Development Tax.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners seek to declare the Notification dated 27.08.2008 ultra vires and to quash demand notices issued for Forest Development Tax.

Filing Reason

The State Government issued a Notification under Section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, imposing Forest Development Tax on mineral-bearing lands, which the petitioners contended was unconstitutional and beyond legislative competence.

Issues

Whether the Notification dated 16.08.2008 is ultra vires Article 246 and Entry 54 of Union List? Whether Forest Development Tax can be levied on mining leases? Whether Section 98A of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 applies to Central Government Corporations?

Procedural History

The petitions were filed and came up for final hearing before the Division Bench; judgment was reserved on 03.12.2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Karnataka Forest Act, 1963: Section 98A
  • Constitution of India: Article 246, Entry 54 of Seventh Schedule, List I, Articles 226, 227
  • Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Hears Consolidated Writ Petitions Challenging Forest Development Tax Imposed on Mining Operations — Petitions Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India Seek to Declare Notification Ultra Vires and Quash Deman...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Rejection of Temporary Injunction in Suit Challenging Compromise Decree. Interpretation of Kachhi Properties Judgment Clarified: No Automatic Stay of Execution Proceedings Upon Filing of Suit for Declaration...