TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Entry 52 of List I overrides Entry 8 of List II; (ii) Whether the expression "intoxicating liquors" in Entry 8 of List II includes alcohol other than potable alcohol; (iii) Whether a notified order under Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 is necessary for Parliament to occupy the field under Entry 33(a) of List III.
Issue (i): Whether Entry 52 of List I overrides Entry 8 of List II.
Analysis: The legislative entries are to be read harmoniously and with a wide construction, but federal supremacy under Article 246 operates only where there is an irreconcilable conflict. Entry 24 of List II is subject to Entry 52 of List I, yet Entry 8 of List II is a special entry dealing with intoxicating liquors and cannot be treated as part of the general field of industries. Entry 52 does not permit Parliament to take over the entire field covered by Entry 8.
Conclusion: Entry 52 of List I does not override Entry 8 of List II.
Issue (ii): Whether the expression "intoxicating liquors" in Entry 8 of List II includes alcohol other than potable alcohol.
Analysis: The phrase "intoxicating liquors" is not confined to potable alcohol alone. It extends to alcohol which is capable of noxious use and diversion to human consumption, including rectified spirit, extra neutral alcohol, and denatured spirit. The entry is grounded in public health and the State's regulatory power may extend to preventing misuse and diversion, though the final product of other industries containing alcohol is not to be swallowed into Entry 8 merely because it contains alcohol.
Conclusion: The expression "intoxicating liquors" includes alcohol other than potable alcohol.
Issue (iii): Whether a notified order under Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 is necessary for Parliament to occupy the field under Entry 33(a) of List III.
Analysis: Section 2 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 read with Item 26 of its First Schedule and Section 18G evinces Parliamentary control over the scheduled industry. The mere presence of Section 18G indicates an intention to occupy the field covered by Entry 33(a), and the absence of a notified order does not restore State legislative competence in that field.
Conclusion: A notified order under Section 18G is not necessary; the field is occupied by Parliament on the strength of Section 18G itself.
Final Conclusion: The reference is answered by holding that the State's regulatory competence under Entry 8 extends beyond potable alcohol to non-potable alcohol susceptible to misuse, while the concurrent field under Entry 33(a) stands occupied by the Parliamentary scheme under the Act without awaiting a notified order.
Ratio Decidendi: A special constitutional entry on intoxicating liquors is not displaced by the general entry on industries, and Parliamentary occupation of a concurrent field can arise from the statute itself where the law evinces an intention to occupy the field.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
