M/S SRINATH BUILDERS and HOUSING CO. PVT. LTD. and ANR. V. THE UNION OF INDIA and 9 ORS

WP(C)/730/2016

AI Insights

The case involves two petitioners who deposited demand drafts for forest royalty payments, which were later returned by the respondents demanding payment at enhanced rates as per the Assam Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2015. The petitioners contested this demand, arguing that their works were executed before the amended rules came into effect, and thus the old rates should apply. The court referenced a prior judgment (WP(C) No. 6532/2015) which held that the amended rules apply prospectively, not retrospectively. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, allowing them to pay the royalty at the rates applicable before the amendment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 687553 (HC-ASSAM)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WP(C) No. 6532/2015
• Laws Referred To: Assam Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2015
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R K BORA
• Assessee Lawyers: N S THAKURIA
• Keywords: Prospective effect; Retrospective effect; Forest Royalty; Amended Rules
• Section: 2015

Judgement Text

"WP(C) 730/2016 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI Heard Ms N.S. Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.K. Bora, learned standing counsel appearing for the Forest Department. On 31.3.2015, the respondent No. 10 issued a letter to the Project Manag er, National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd., Patharkandi Unit requesting him to allow the petitioner No. 1 to deposit Forest Royalty of the Forest Produ ce (Sand and Stone) along with Monopoly fees, VAT, Income Tax etc. Similar letter was issued on 29.6.2015 in respect of petitioner No. 2. Consequently, the petitioner No. 1 deposited a demand draft of Rs. 9,40, 000/- on 25.8.2015 in the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Karimganj. Pe titioner No. 2 deposited two demand drafts - one for Rs. 7,73,127/- and the othe r for Rs. 22,85,266/- on 17.11.2015 in the Office of the respondent No. 10. The demand drafts of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were returned back to them on 7.1.2016 and 31.12.2015, respectively. It is submitted by Ms Thakuria that such return of drafts was occasione d because the respondents demanded forest royalty at the rate as fixed under the Assam Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2015. Ms Thakuria has also su bmitted that the petitioners had executed the works long before coming into effe ct of the amended Rules of 2015. She has also submitted that this Court had alre ady taken a view vide the judgment and order dated 16.10.2015 passed in WP(C) No . 6532/2015 that new schedule of rates introduced by the amended Rules can only be given prospective effect. Mr. R.K. Bora also submits that the case is covered in terms of the judg ment and order passed on 16.10.2015 in WP(C) No. 6532/2015. The operative portion of the order dated 16.10.2015 reads as follows: I have considered the submissions made by and on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the amended Rules as well as the n otification issued by the concerned department. The examination of the said docu ments leaves no manner of doubt that the new Schedule of rates introduced by the amended Rules, 2015 can only be given prospective effect. The petitioners havin g executed the works long before the coming into effect of the amended Rules and as per the Schedule of rates prescribed under the 2013 Rules, the amended sched ule of rate under the Rules of 2015 obviously cannot be made applicable in their case. Such being the position, the demand made by the respondent No.12 for reco very of forest royalty at the enhanced rate is held to be illegal and not sustai nable in the eye of law. It is, therefore, made clear that the enhanced rate of forest royalty, as introduced by the Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2015 would have prospective effect from the date of notification of the Rules o nly and the same cannot be given retrospective effect. With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. In view of the above position, the respondent authorities cannot demand Forest Royalty at the enhanced rate as introduced by the Assam Minor Minerals Co ncession (Amendment) Rules, 2015 retrospectively and the petitioners will be lia ble to pay at the rate prevailing prior to coming into effect of the Assam Minor Minerals Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2015. The writ petition stands disposed of. "