D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, HRISHIKESH ROY, ABHAY S. OKA, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, UJJAL BHUYAN, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Lalta Prasad Vaish – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
Table of Contents
| A. Background |
| i. Relevant constitutional provisions |
| ii. The judgment in Synthetics (7J) |
| iii. The aftermath of Synthetics (7J) |
| iv. The Reference Order(s) |
| B. Submission |
| i. Appellants’ submissions |
| ii. Respondent’s submissions |
| C. The distinction between potable and non-potable alcohol |
| D. Issues |
| E. Analysis |
| i. The constitutional distribution of legislative power |
| ii. Scheme of legislative entries |
| iii. The field covered by Entry 52 of List I and Entry 8 of List II |
| a. The scope of Entry 8 |
| I. The meaning of ‘that is to say’ |
| II. Product or industry based entry |
| b. Scope of Entry 52 of List I: the absence of “to the extent to which” 57 |
| c. Reconciling the potential overlap between Entry 52 of List I and Entry 8 of List II 63 |
| iv. Scope of Entry 8: Meaning of ‘intoxicating liquor’ |
| a. Precedent on the interpretation of ‘intoxicating liquor’: exploring FN Balsara and Southern Pharmaceuticals |
| b. The legal import of ‘intoxicating liquor’ |
| c. Evolution of the legislative lists on ‘intoxicating liquor’ |
|
|
Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of UP, (1990) 1 SCC 109 [Paras 1
Har Shanker v. Dy. Excise and Taxation Commissioner
Synthetics & Chemicals v. State of UP.
State of Bombay v. FN Balsara : 1951 SCC 860 [Para 08] – Referred.
Tika Ramji v. State of UP., AIR 1956 SC 676 [Paras 08
Indian Mica and Micancite Industries v. State of Bihar
Shri Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahakari Mandali v. State of Gujarat
Gujchem Distillers India v. State of Gujarat
Vam Organic Chemicals v. State of U.P.
Government of Haryana v. Haryana Brewery
Deccan Sugar and Abkari Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Excise
Deccan Sugar & Abkari v. Commissioner of Excise, AP
State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley
Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of Haryana
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals v. State of Bihar
Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B.
TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka
State of Karnataka v. State of Meghalaya
MPV Sundararamier & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1958) 9 STC 298 [Paras 47
United Province v. Atiqa Begum, (1940) FCR 110 [Paras 47
Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. V. State of UP (2005) 2 SCC 515 [Para 51] – Relied.
Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India
Bansal Wire Industries v. State of UP (2011) 6 SCC 545 [Para 54] – Relied.
Sait Rikaji Furtarnal v. State of AP (1991) Supp (1) SCC 202 [Para 54] – Relied.
CST v. Popular Trading Company (2000) 5 SCC 511 [Para 54] – Relied.
State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Brewaries (2004) 11 SCC 26 [Paras 54
State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society (1954) 2 SCC 152 [Paras 54
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)
Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/s Steel Authority of India
Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills v. State of UP
Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa
State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch and Co.
Baijnath Kadio v. State of Bihar, (1969) 3 SCC 838, 847-848 : AIR 1970 SC 1436 : (1970) 2 SCR 100
State of Haryana v. Chanan Mal, (1977) 1 SCC 340, 351 : AIR 1976 SC 1654 : (1976) 3 SCR 688
Calcutta Gas Company v. State of West Bengal
Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemical v. State of Kerala
Kone Elevator India (P) Ltd. v. State of T.N.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. GTL Infrastructure Limited
Rainbow Steels v. Sales Tax Commissioner
State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha
Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise
Bihar Distillery v. Union of India
Kannan Devan Hills Produce v. State of Kerala
Alcohol is inherently a noxious substance that is prone to misuse affecting public health at large – Entry 8 covers alcohol that could be used noxiously to detriment of public health – State Legislat....
State is only empowered to levy excise duty on alcoholic liquor for human consumption – State has no power to levy excise duty on wastage of liquor after distillation.
The appellant does not require a central license under the Industries Act for manufacturing potable alcohol as it does not qualify as an industrial undertaking.
The State had no legislative competence to levy Excise Duty on rectified spirit not fit for human consumption, and the imposition of Excise Duty on presumptive production of liquor was ultra vires to....
Point of law : Owner of cinema house cannot challenge the setting up of a new cinema house because it does not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest, the business competitio....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Vashistha Narayan Dubey For the Respondent : Manish Nair
There is no fundamental right to trade in liquor; state policies can modify licensing rights as long as they comply with statutory provisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.