KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ETC. ETC. versus CANTREADS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ETC. ETC. versus CANTREADS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

Rubber sheets processed from latex (by sulphuric acid, smoked, graded) remain 'caoutchouc' or natural rubber as defined under s.2(7) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, and are therefore forest produce subject to Forest Development Tax. Test of commercial parlance is inapplicable to legislative forest produce definitions.

Parties
Appellant: Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd.; Respondent: Cantreads Pvt. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 April 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Forest Produce Definition, Levy of Forest Development Tax, Rubber Sheets as Forest Produce
Taxation Forestry Law Forest Produce Definition Levy of Forest Development Tax Rubber Sheets as Forest Produce

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd.

Appellant

Cantreads Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rubber sheets of various grades supplied by State or Karnataka Forest Plantation Corporation are 'Forest Produce' under Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and liable to Forest Development Tax under Section 98-A

Ratio Decidendi

Rubber sheets processed from latex (by sulphuric acid, smoked, graded) remain 'caoutchouc' or natural rubber as defined under s.2(7) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, and are therefore forest produce subject to Forest Development Tax. Test of commercial parlance is inapplicable to legislative forest produce definitions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court set aside
  • Writ petitions filed by the respondents dismissed