SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 17405

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
PIONEER CHEMICAL COMPANY (A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPC/1966/2025



##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:20403-DB

Digitally signed

by SAGRIKA

SAGRIKA AGRAWAL

AGRAWAL Date:

2026.05.02

11:30:51 +0530

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 1966 of 2025

Pioneer Chemical Company (A Proprietorship Firm) Through- Its

Proprietor Namely Subodh Kumar Bansal Son Of Harish Kumar Bansal,

Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of 286/7, Ahiwara Road, Kumhari,

Block Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Special Secretary, Department

Of Commercial Tax (Excise), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa

Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance,

Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. A.G.

For Respondent No. 2 : Mr Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate on

behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Advocate

##PAGE2##

2

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

01.05.2026

1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also

heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. Advocate General for the

Respondent No. 1/ State and Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, on behalf of

Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2/

UOI.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking

following relief:-

10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

call for the entire records pertaining to the present

case.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

hold and declare that the impugned enactment i.e.

Chhattisgarh Molasses Control and Regulation Rules,

2022 (Annexure P-1) is ultra vires to the Constitution

of India.

10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also

kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this

Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the

case.

3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the

parties that in an identical matter bearing WPC No. 3580 of 2022

(M/s. Kedia Trading Versus State Of Chhattisgarh & Another)

##PAGE3##

3

and other connected matter, had allowed the petition, vide order

dated 27.03.2026 and observing as follows:-

“44. It is not at all in dispute that Molasses is a by-

product of sugar industry and it is not fit for human

consumption in its raw form. It further does not contain

alcohol and becomes capable of producing alcohol

only after fermentation. As such, the Molasses cannot

per se be equated with "Intoxicant', 'intoxicating liquor'

or 'exisable article' as defined under the Excise Act.

The Excise Act is a legislation dealing with intoxicating

liquor and intoxicating drugs. Therefore, bringing

Molasses within the regulatory fold of the Excise Act,

without statutory backing, is impermissible. The State's

attempt to regulate Molasses on the ground that it may

be used for producing alcohol amounts to over-

extension of legislative power. Accepting such a

contention would permit the State to regulate any

substance capable of fermentation, which is

constitutionally impermissible. The State relies on

Section 8(c) of the Excise Act, which refers to "any

other base" used for manufacture of liquor. This Court

is unable to accept that the expression "any other

base" can be stretched to include molasses in its raw,

non-intoxicant form. Such interpretation would override

the definition provisions, expand the Act beyond its

##PAGE4##

4

object, and further violate settled principles of statutory

interpretation. Section 62 of the Excise Act empowers

the State to make rules to carry out the provisions of

the Act. It is a settled principle that rules cannot

enlarge the scope of the parent statute. The Rules of

2022 extend control to non-intoxicant uses, impose

licensing and duty, regulate ordinary trade activity. This

clearly travels beyond the scope of the Excise Act and

is therefore ultra vires. A plain reading of the Rules

shows two categories: use for distillation (valid domain

of State), and use for industrial, agricultural, cattle feed

etc.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top