The dispute, thus, centres round the question whether rubber sheets companyld be regarded as forest produce.
The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge and it was held that the natural rubber, which has been agreed to be purchased by the Company from the Corporation or the State, being in the shape of RMA sheets, was number forest produce.
The State, therefore, transferred the liability of supply of the quota of rubber to the Corporation.
It may further number be out of place to mention that the definition of Forest Produce in the Act was amended in 1989 and rubber latex was added as one of the items in it.
He based his submission, rather on claim that the word caoutchouc was wide enough to include rubber sheets.
But the learned companynsel for the State did number rely on the amended definition as clarificatory of what was included earlier.
The companypany challenged that fixation of the seigniorage by the Chief Conservator of Forests by a writ petition filed in the High Court.
A year later State Forest Corporation was companystituted.
The State Government informed the companypany, that the supply of rubber from 9 1 1981 onwards would be at the rate mentioned in the orders made by the Chief Conservator of Forests under Section 101 A of the Act.
While the State filed appeal against that order of the Single Judge, the Company filed writ petition for refund of the amount paid by it.
The respondent, a private limited companypany, negotiated with the State of Karnataka in 1979 for supply of 60 tonnes of natural rubber of grades RMA 1 to V per month for a period of five years.
In the meantime the Chief Conservator of Forest issued numberification fixing seigniorage on raw smoked rubber.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. SAHAI, J. The short and the only question of law that survives for companysideration in these appeals directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka is whether rubber sheets of various grades supplied by the State of Karnataka or the Karnataka Forest Plantation Corporation to the private limited companypanies, were Forest Produce within the meaning of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 hereinafter referred to as, the Act and hence liable to payment of forest development tax under Section 98 A thereof.
Even though validity of sub section 1 of Section 101 A, which enabled the State Government to grant or supply forest produce to any person on payment of seigniorage value as may be fixed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, was challenged, it does number appear to have been pressed in the High Court either before the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench number was it pressed even in this Court to support the order of the High Court.
