R PAMPAPATHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have obtained mining leases from the State Government in regard to the mines, beds, veins and seams of Iron/ Manganese Ore in the lands leased to them, situated in forest areas. The petitioners, as lessees, are liable to pay annual dead rent at the rates specified in the Lease Deeds or Royalty on the ore removed by them from the leased area, as prescribed in the Second Schedule to the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the MMRD Act or the Central Act) whichever is higher in amount, but not both. By notices issued in the years 1992 and 1993, the jurisdictional Senior Geologists of the Mines and Geology Department, have called upon the Petitioners to pay Forest Development Tax under Section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "Forest Act" or 'State Act') from 1.4.1992 at the rate of Eight per cent per annum on the royalty amount paid by the Petitioners to the Department of Mines and Geology.

(2.) The Petitioners contend that such tax is not payable by them, in regard to the royalty paid on the mineral removed by them from the leased area, in view of the following:

(3.) The petitioners have therefore filed these petitions for the following reliefs; (a) Declaration that the forest development tax is not leviable on royalty payable in regard to mining leases to the State government under the provisions of the Central Act; (b) To restrain the Respondents from demanding or collecting forest development tax on royalty amount under Section 98A of the Forest Act, as the said Section is inapplicable; (c) For quashing the notices issued by the Senior Geologists demanding payment of Forest development tax and for a direction to the Respondents to refund the forest development tax, if any, collected from them. Some of the Petitioners have also sought a declaration that Section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, if it purports to levy any forest development tax on royalty payable on minerals, is unconstitutional.