In Brief
A batch of over 400 civil appeals concerning the levy of transit fees on forest produce in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court held that the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, operate in different spheres and do not impliedly repeal each other. Forest produce retains its character even after mechanical processing (such as crushing stones into grits or converting limestone into quicklime). The words 'brought from forest' mean originating in a forest, not merely passing through one. Transit fees are regulatory in nature and do not require quid pro quo. However, the Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rules dramatically increasing transit fees and adopting an ad-valorem basis without reasonable justification transformed them from regulatory fees into revenue-raising taxes, making them unconstitutional. The Court upheld the Allahabad High Court's judgment striking down these amendments but allowed appeals against the Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh High Courts.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.