The Gauhati High Court stayed the recovery of royalty due till the next returnable dates as an interim measure.
The Divisional Forest Officer, Sonitpur East Division (respondent no. 4) had informed the Deputy General Manager (P), NHIDCL PMU (respondent no.6), that a sum of 15,58,76,034.00 (Rupees fifteen crore fifty eight lakh seventy-six thousand thirty-four only) was due and recoverable from Simplex Infrastructures ltd, the petitioner on account of royalty against (i) ordinary earth, (ii) stone aggregate, and (iii) sand, used in four laning Dolabari to Jamuguri from Km 17.30 of NH-37A to 182.00 of NH-52 and therefore, the said authority was requested to deposit the said due amount through an online portal.
The forest department has submitted that it was the liability of the works contractor to make payment of the forest royalty and as the petitioner had not paid such forest royalty and price of the forest produce, i.e. earth, gravel and sand, the petitioner was also liable to pay the price of such produce, forest royalty, fine, GST, IT, etc., which has amounted to Rs.40,04,04,926.60.
It was submitted that the petitioner had left the four-laning NH work from Dolabari to Jamuguri from Km17.30 of NH-37A to 182.00 of NH-52 and the NHIDCL had foreclosed the contract with the petitioner on 20.08.2021 and thus, there was reasonable apprehension that the petitioner might withdraw his payment without liquidating the forest dues.
The Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bureau of Investigation (EO), Assam had re-assessed and re-calculated the pending dues, and in the exercise of power under Rule 63, 64(i), 64(ii), 65(i) and 65(ii) of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013, determined the dues to the extent of Rs.3,00,24,540/- (Rupees three crore twenty-four thousand five hundred forty only).
It was evident that the demand made by communication has not been recalled and/or set aside by subsequent impugned communication dated 16.03.2023.
“As an ad-interim measure that no coercive action shall be initiated against the petitioner for recovery of the said amount of Rs.3,00,24,540/- till the next returnable date, as a natural sequel, would have to provide as an interim measure that till the next returnable date, the respondent nos. 2 to 4 shall not initiate coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the amount indicated in the communication under memo no. FSET/G-51/B/Simplex/2023/1450-51 dated 16.03.2023 till the next returnable date.”, the single judge bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana held.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
