| Headnote |
Forest Act, 1927:s.41 - Levy of transit fee on forest produce by three States-Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh - Validity of - Notification dated 28.05.2001 prescribing fee for issuing pass fortransit afforest produce - Held: Levy of transit fee is valid -Notification dated 28.05.2001 issued by the Stale of MadhyaPradesh cannot be said to be beyond the scope of 1: 5 of 2000Rules and s. 41 of the 192 7 Act - State of Madhya Pradesh was Dfully justified in fixing rate of transit fee at the rate of Rs. 71- andRs.41- per tonne which was well within the power of the Stale u/r. 5of 2000 Rules - High Court committed error in quashing the orderdated 28.05.2001 - Notification prescribing fee is valid - UttarPradesh Transit of Timber & other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 -Madhya Pradesh Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 2000.Transit fee - Levy of; on transit afforest produce - Stones,stone boulders converted into stone grits, stone chips and stonedust, if looses its character of.forest produce and transit fee isleviable - Held: Crushing of stones, stone boulders into stone grits,stone chips and stone dust does not result into a new commoditydifferent .fi"om forest produce - Crushed materials continue to bestone and retain their nature afforest produce and transit fee isleviable.Transit fee - Levy of on transit of forest produce - Marblesblocks, marble slabs, marble chips, if.forest produce and leviabilityof transit fee on the said goods - Held: Marbles blocks, marbleslabs, marble chips are all forest produce - Transit Fee 011 marbleslabs and tiles cannot be denied - State did not commit any error indemanding the Transit Fee on transit of the said goods Flay ash, clinker. synthetic gypsum, if forest produce - Held:Flay ash. clinker. ;synthetic gypsum are not forest produce - However,Gypsum is naturally found and obtained in the natural form, hence,is a forest procedure.Coal with its various varieties, limestone, hydrated lime, quicklimestone, slake lime: and veneer and plywood waste,if forestproduce - Held: Formation of coal is due to large tracts of forestgetting buried under the ground due to natural processes, thus, is aforest produce - Since the essential character of the other productsdues nut change. thus, all are forest produce.Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,I957 - 1957 Act if impliedly repeals the 1927 Act - Held: ForestAct, 1927 and the Rules framed 11/s. 41 are neither overridden norimpliedly repealed, altered or amended by the 1957 Act and theRules framed thereunder - On looking into the pith and substanceof both !he legislation, it is clear that both the legislation operateD in different spheres and fields - Forest Act deals with forest andforest wealth with a different object and the 1957 Act deals withmines and mineral wealth - it cannot he said that in view of the1957 Act especially as amended by Act 38 of 1999, the provisionsof' 1927 A,;·t and' 1978 Rules have become void, inoperative andE stand repealed - Constitution of India - Arts. 254 and 372. s. 2(4)(b) - Words "brought from" ins. 2(4)(b) - Interpretationof - Held: Words "brought from" in s. 2(4J(b) means brought ji-omforestfrom where forest produce has originated - Words 'broughtfrom forest' cannot be read as "brought through forest" - For anF item to be treated as forest produce, its origin may be in any forestwithin the State of UP. or in a forest outside the State of UP.s. 38A(b) - Forest - Meaning of - Held: Definition of forestcannot be confined only to reserved forests, village forests andprotected forests 41s enumerated in 1927 Act - Forest shall includeall statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserve,protected or otherwise and also shall include any area regarded asforest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership.s. 8OA - Whether goods or forest produce passing throughthe roads as notified by notification dated 10.02.1960 can he treatedto be passing through a protected forest - Held: Roads notified by notification dated 10.02.1960 uls. 80A cannot be read lo mean that such roads have been declared as protected forest - Notificationcan only be read to mean that both sides of the road have beendeclared as protected forest on which Chapter JV of the 1927 Actshall be applicable - ft cannol be said that merely because bothsides of roads are declared protected forests, the roads itself havebecome protected forests - Thus, merely passing through the roadsas included in the notification dated 10.02.1960. it cannot be heldthat the goods or forest produce are passing through the protectedforests. ss. 4 and 20 - Non-issuance of s. 20 Notification after s. 4Notification of 1927 Act - Submission that State of UP although cissued notification u/s 4 of 1927 Actvproposing to constitute a landas forest but no final notification having been issued u/s. 20 of1927 Act, the land covered by a notification issued u/s. 4 cannot beregarded as forest so as to levy transit fee on the forest producetransition through that area - Held:after the issue of the notification Du/s. 4 no forest produced can be removed there.,from, except inaccordance with such rules as may be made b.v the State Governmentin this behalf- Regulation by the State thus comes into operationafter the issue of notification u/s. 4 and thus, the submission thatsince 110 final notification 11/s. 20 has been issued they cannot beregulated by Rules 1978 cannot be accepted - After issuance of Enotification u/s. 4 of 1927 Act, removal afforest produce therefromshall be governed by the Rules framed by the State - The fact thatno notification u/s. 20 has been issued does not mean that restrictionput by the State Government by Rules are not applicable.Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber & other Forest Produce Rules, F1978: rr. 3, 5 - r. 3 wherein transit of forest produce is permissibleon(v with a transit pass and r. 5 providing for fees payable fordifferent passes - r 3 if independent ~l r. 5 - Held: Rule 3 is notindependent of r. 5 - Transit of forest produce is permissible onlywith a transit pass - Transit fee is payable on all kinds of transitpasses and cannat be confined only to transit passes as referred loin r. 4(1)(b) on(11.Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rules to 1978 Rules by whichtransit fee "was increased - Validity of- Held: Transit fee charged under 1978 Rules is regulatory fee in character -- For regulatoryfee, State is not to prove any quid pro quo - Regulatory fee can becharged, even if. no services are rendered by the State in lieu of feerealised - In case of transit fee where the object and purpose isregulation of transit afforest produce adoption of ad valoremprinciple for levy of Transit fee was not appropriate and such levychanged the character of fee into a tax as held b_v the High Court -High Court rightly struck down Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rulesto 1978 Rules as being excessive and confiscatory in nature - HighCourt rightly held that increase in transit fee as excessive and thecharacter of the fee has changed from simple regulatory fee to afee which is raising revenue - On facts interim order was passedby the Supreme Court for recovery of fee as per third amendment ·-State to consider the claim of refund provided transit fee has notpassed on to the consumer which may result into unjust enrichment. |
