38.6c New Delhi, India, Thursday, October 23, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

SC upholds power of States to impose tax on industrial alcohal

By Jhanak Sharma      23 October, 2024 12:14 PM      0 Comments
SC upholds power of States to impose tax on industrial alcohal

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the power of States to impose tax on all kinds of alcohol, including the industrial alcohol and its raw material, in a judgment which would provide major boost to their revenue.

A nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud by a majority view of 8:1 ruled that industrial alcohal comes within the meaning of 'intoxicating alcohal' under Entry 8 of the State List, so the States can regulate and tax it.

Supreme Court Grants States Authority to Tax Industrial Alcohol

The majority said that intoxicating liquor under Entry 8 cannot be restricted to potable alcohol. Though Entry 52 of the Union List empowered the central government to regulate those industries which have been declared by Parliament to be of public interest, legislative lists must be given a wide interpretation, the bench said.

It felt that there can be an overlap between the two entries and the way out is to reconcile the two entries to see that neither are rendered redundant.

Nine-Judge Bench Rules Industrial Alcohol Falls Under ‘Intoxicating Liquor’

The court, therefore, overruled its 1990 judgment which had held that intoxicating liquor referred only to potable liquor and States cannot tax industrial alcohol.

The matter was referred to the nine-judge bench in 2010.

Justice B V Nagarathna was a lone judge who gave a dissenting judgment.

The other judges in the bench were Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.

Entry 8 of the State List empowered a State to make laws for “intoxicating liquors, that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors.”

However, under Entry 33 of the Concurrent List both the State and Union governments can make laws on the products of any industry, even if Parliament has granted control to the Union in public interest, which became a point of contention as who has the power to regulate industrial alcohol.

The Uttar Pradesh government had on January 13, 1990 issued a notification under UP Licences for the Possession of Denatured Spirit and Specially Denatured Spirit Rules, 1976 (1976 Rules) and imposed a licence fee of 15 paise per litre on the quantity of specially denatured spirit obtained from distilleries, which led to the filing of petitions.
 



Share this article:

About:

Jhanak is a lawyer by profession and legal journalist by passion. She graduated at the top of her cl...Read more

Follow:
FacebookTwitterLinkedinInstagram


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations

After A.K. Bassi, another CBI officer who was investigating corruption allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana moved the Supreme Court.

Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land

SC bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi has allotted the dispute site to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, while directing the government to allot an alternate 5 acre land within Ayodhya to Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.

Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi

The court guided all states to document their response to the commission's report within four weeks. If any of the states fail to file a response, it will be presumed that they have no objections to the recommendations made by the commission, the court said.

Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts

On April 18, 2020, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended new Chief Justices for three High Courts. Justice Dipankar Datta was proposed as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, succeeding Justice B.P. Dharmadhikari. Justice Biswanath Somadder was nominated as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court, while Justice Mohammad Rafiq was recommended for transfer as Chief Justice of Orissa High Court.

TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

father-of-deceased-pilot-in-ahmedabad-crash-moves-sc-for-court-monitored-probe
Trending Judiciary
Father of deceased pilot in Ahmedabad crash moves SC for court monitored probe

91-year-old father of pilot killed in Ahmedabad Air India crash moves SC seeking court-monitored probe into alleged biased and flawed investigation.

17 October, 2025 10:54 AM
child-cant-consent-to-sex-life-imprisonment-upheld-for-sexual-assault-on-minor-girl-madras-hc
Trending Judiciary
Child Can’t Consent to Sex — Life Imprisonment Upheld for Sexual Assault on Minor Girl: Madras HC [Read Judgment]

Madras HC upholds life imprisonment for assault on minor SC girl, reiterating that a child cannot consent to sex; school records key for age proof.

17 October, 2025 11:45 AM
sc-criticizes-casual-declaration-of-witnesses-as-hostile-upholds-conviction-under-sc-st-act
Trending Judiciary
SC Criticizes Casual Declaration of Witnesses as Hostile, Upholds Conviction under SC/ST Act [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court slams casual practice of declaring witnesses hostile; upholds life imprisonment in SC/ST Act case involving rape of minor girl.

17 October, 2025 11:55 AM
delhi-hc-quashes-22-year-old-complaint-against-advocate-reiterates-that-a-lawyers-office-is-not-a-commercial-activity
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Quashes 22-Year Old Complaint Against Advocate, Reiterates That A Lawyer’s Office Is Not A Commercial Activity [Read Judgment]

Delhi HC quashes 22-year-old complaint against advocate, rules that a lawyer’s office is not a commercial activity under MDP 2001 and Building Bye-Laws.

17 October, 2025 01:42 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email