SUPER CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATES Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) The dispute in the present case is that 25% DMF was imposed on the royalty by the Sate Government on 17/11/2017, and the grievance of the appellant is that all the contracts prior to this date with the respondents cannot be made basis for charging DMF.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant has referred to the notice dtd. 28/5/2024 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) which is the notice sent for demanding DMF. It transpires that for the first two contracts, royalty cannot be claimed because they were prior to charging this royalty, and the appellant is not bound to deposit 50% of this amount as per the notice. The other argument is that the notices (Annexure Nos. 3 and 4 to the writ petition) are for the contracts dtd. 11/7/2019, and in the contract itself the contract with the respondent was for construction of the road, and in the contract itself it has not been mentioned that the minerals which were extracted by the appellant company will be charged by levying royalty as well as DMF.