TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opal Verma 1. Heard Shri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Tax Nos. 378 of 2021 and 383 of 2021; Shri Nishant Mishra in Writ Tax Nos. 369 of 2021, 370 of 2021, 371 of 2021 and 385 of 2021; Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Tax No. 355 of 2020; Shri Pawan Shri Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Tax Nos. 364 of 2021 and 451 of 2021; Shri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Apurva Hajela and Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel, for the State. 2. In Writ Tax No. 378 of 2021, the petitioner has sought relief in the nature of a declaration that the State legislature (of Uttar Pradesh) lost its legislative competence to impose or levy tax on sale of Extra Neutral Alcohol (in short, 'ENA'), after enactment of the 101st Constitution Amendment, with effect from 01.07.2017 - as a direct consequence of the enactment of Article 246A read with Article 366 (12-A) of the Constitution of India, read with the substituted Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, to the Constitution of India. Further relief has been sough....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Writ Tax No. 371 of 2021, besides the challenge raised to the legislative competence and Notification dated 17.12.2019 (as above), challenge has also been raised to the assessment notice dated 08.06.2021 issued under Section 28 of the UPVAT Act, for A.Y. 2019-20 and the Circular/letters dated 10.06.2021 and 11.06.2021 (as above). 7. In Writ Tax No. 364 of 2021, besides the challenge to the legislative competence (as above), challenge has also been raised to two assessment notices, both dated 11.06.2021, issued under Section 29 of the UPVAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, seeking to impose tax under the UPVAT Act as also the Central Sales Tax Act, for A.Y. 2017-18 (01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018) (UP & Central). 8. In Writ Tax No. 451 of 2021, besides the challenge to the legislative competence and the Notification dated 17.12.2019 (as above), challenge has also been raised to two assessment notices, both dated 07.07.2021, one issued under Section 28 of the UPVAT Act and the other under Section 9 (2) Central Sales Tax Act, for A.Y. 2019-2020. 9. Writ Tax No. 355 of 2020 has been filed by the U.P. Sugar Mills Association seeking to challenge the legislative competence of the St....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... legislative competence to enact laws to impose duties of excise on tobacco and other goods manufactured or produced in India, except (i) alcoholic liquors for human consumption and (ii) opium, Indian hemp etc. 14. It is an admitted case between the parties, prior to the introduction of 101st Constitution Amendment, various State legislatures had made laws to impose tax on sale and to levy duties of excise on "alcoholic liquors for human consumption". Insofar as the Parliament is concerned, prior to the aforesaid amendment, it had enacted laws imposing duties of excise on manufacture of alcohol - not for human consumption, including ENA and SDS. 15. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, there pre-existed, the United Provinces Sales of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'United Provinces Act'). Under Section 2 (aaaa) of that Act, the term 'alcohol' was defined as Ethyl Alcohol not being "alcoholic liquor for human consumption". It included, Rectified Spirit, Denatured Spirit and Absolute Alcohol. Under Section 3(c) of the said Act, there existed a provision to levy tax, at the point of first purchase of 'alcohol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on was later amended by Notification No. KA.NI-2-879/XI dated 26.03.2008. Thereby, the words 'including methyl alcohol' were substituted with the words 'excluding methyl Alcohol'. Also, the words 'manufacture or importer dealer' were substituted with the word 'dealer'. The words 'consideration fee or excise duty' were replaced by- 'consideration fee, excise duty, fees or purchase tax'. 18. It would be fruitful for our discussion to extract the unamended and amended taxation Entries of List I and List II (as amended by the 101st Constitution Amendment), as have also been extensively referred to by the learned counsel for the parties. A comparative chart showing relevant Entries before and after that amendment read as under: List II, Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India Unamended Entries of List II (State List) Entries as Amended 8. Intoxicating liquors, that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors. Same as before 51. Duties of excise on the following goods manufactured or produced in the State and countervailing duties at the same or lower rates on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Explanation.- The provisions of this article, shall, in respect of goods and services tax refer to in clause (5) of Article 279-A, take effect from the date recommended by the Goods and Services Tax Council. " 20. Further, Article 366 (12A) introduced simultaneously, reads thus: "366. Definitions - In this Constitution, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say- (12A). "goods and services tax" means any tax on supply of goods, or services or both except taxes on the supply of the alcoholic liquor for human consumption." 21. Consequently, the Parliament also enacted the Central GST Act, 2017. The State legislature, on its part, enacted the UPGST Act, 2017. Also, by Act No.18 of 2017, the Parliament substituted Section 2(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The original and the substituted texts of Section 2(d) of that Act, read as below: Unamended Section 2(d) Section 2(d) as substituted (d) "goods" includes all materials, articles, commodities and all other kinds of movable property, bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mption" - as an existing commodity, on the date of that levy being imposed. The argument-denatured spirit can also be transformed to "alcoholic liquors for human consumption", and therefore be amenable to duties of excise, by the State legislatures, was specifically rejected. Ethyl Alcohol (95%) (also known as Rectified Spirit) i.e. industrial alcohol, was opined to be not-fit for human consumption. The range of alcohol in potable alcohol i.e. "alcoholic liquors for human consumption" was also opined to be 19% - 43%. The conclusions reached in that decision as recorded in paras 54, 86 and 88 (majority view) and para 101 (concurring view) of the report, read as below: "54. We have no doubt that the framers of the Constitution when they used the expression 'alcoholic liquor for human consumption' they meant at that time and still the expression means that liquor which as it is is consumable in the sense capable of being taken by human beings as such as beverage of drinks. Hence, the expression under Entry 84, List I must be understood in that light. We were taken through various dictionary and other meanings and also invited to the process of manufacture of alcohol in order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 88. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions and practice, we are clearly of the opinion that in respect of industrial alcohol the States are not authorised to impose the impost they have purported to do. In that view of the matter, the contentions of the petitioners must succeed and such impositions and imposts must go as being invalid in law so far as industrial alcohol is concerned. We make it clear that this will not affect any impost so far as potable alcohol as commonly understood is concerned. It will also not affect any imposition of levy on industrial alcohol fee where there are circumstances to establish that there was quid pro quo for the fee sought to be imposed. This will not affect any regulating measure as such. 101. Under these circumstances therefore it is clear that the State legislature had no authority to levy duty or tax on alcohol which is not for human consumption as that could only be levied by the Centre." 24. Then, in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Modi Distillery & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 753, an issue had arisen as to competence of the State legislature to impose duties of excise on (i) wastage of IMFL, exported outside the State, (ii) wastage of high....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... alcoholic liquors meant for human consumption as well as for other purposes. Now coming to Entry 8 in List II, it does not use the expression "alcoholic liquors for human consumption". It employs the expression "intoxicating liquors" which expression is, of course, not qualified by words "for human consumption". This is for the obvious reason that the very word "intoxicating" signifies "for human consumption". Entry 8, it is necessary to emphasize, places all aspects of intoxicating liquors within the State's sphere; production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors is placed within the exclusive domain of the States. Entry 6, which inter alia speaks of "public health" is relevant only for the reason that it furnishes a ground for prohibiting consumption of intoxicating liquors. Coming to Entry 33 in List III, the language of clause (a) thereof is significant. Even though control of certain industries may have been taken over by the Union by virtue of a declaration made by Parliament in terms of Entry 52 in List I, yet the "trade, commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of the products" of such industry is placed in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r typographical error. The entire preceding discussion in the judgment repeatedly affirms that so far as potable alcohols are concerned, they are governed by Entry 8 and are within the exclusive domain of the States. The aforesaid words cannot fit in with the said repeatedly affirmed reasoning. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the said passage cannot be understood as holding that even in respect of the industries engaged in the manufacture or production of potable liquors, the control is vested in the Union by virtue of Item 26 of the First Schedule to the IDR Act. In view of the express language of Entry 8 - as has been clearly explained in McDowell [(1996) 3 SCC 709] - so far as potable liquors are concerned, their manufacture, production, possession, transport, purchase and sale is within the exclusive domain of the States and the Union of India has no say in the matter. For a similar clarification with respect to the power of the State to levy sales tax on industrial alcohol, reference may be had to State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. [(1991) 4 SCC 139]." 26. That decision sought to recognize the competence of the State legislatures, to levy duties of excise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) SCR 623] now holds the field. In that decision the State's power to levy excise duty was held to be limited by Entry 51 to tax on alcoholic liquors for human consumption. It was also held that Section 2 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 as well as Serial No. 26 of the First Schedule to that Act covered the whole field on industrial alcohol and its products. Therefore, since the coming into force of the IDR Act on 8-5-1952 the State Legislatures are constitutionally incompetent to levy any tax on industrial alcohol. 23. The principle was succinctly reiterated in State of U.P. v. Modi Distillery[(1995) 5 SCC 753] where it was said that the State's power to levy excise duty was limited to alcoholic liquor for human consumption and that the framers of the Constitution, when they used the expression "alcohol liquors for human consumption", meant, and the expression still means, that liquor which, as it is, is consumable in the sense that it is capable of being taken by human beings as such as a beverage or drink. ... Dictionaries and technical books showed that rectified spirit (95 per cent) was an industrial alcohol and not potable as such. .......
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uctifies only after the original raw material (imported rectified spirit) has undergone distillation process at two different stages and transmute and mutate into an intoxicant or potable alcohol palatable to human consumption, but its (impost) collection is effected just before bottling it in that form (potable liquor). Indeed, the levy predicated in this rule is on the total quantity of imported rectified spirit utilised for mutating it in the form of IMFL, a new produce. The last part of the rule stipulates the quantum of charges to be levied on such utilised imported rectified spirit for production of the foreign liquor. For that limited purpose, the quantity of imported rectified spirit utilised in the production of potable liquor, is reckoned." 30. Then, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Synthetics and Chemicals Limited (supra) and another Constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court in M.P.V. Sundararamier & Co. Vs. State of A.P. & Ors., AIR 1958 SC 468 as also the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore & Ors. Vs. D. Cawasji & Company & Ors., (1970) 3 SCC 710, it has been submitted, the legislative competence to enact a law imposing tax, cannot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petence with the State legislature to impose tax on that commodity because it may eventually be used to manufacture a commodity that may be "alcoholic liquor for human consumption", that would be taxable under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, to the Constitution of India. The commodity (ENA) would remain outside the purview of that taxing entry, as substituted by the 101st Constitution Amendment. 34. Relying on Article 246A read with Article 366 (12A) of the Constitution of India, it has been further submitted, insofar as taxes on supply of goods/commodities are concerned, upon the 101st Constitution amendment, besides "alcoholic liquor for human consumption", all other goods or commodities may remain under the GST regime. Therefore, in any case, UPVAT may never be imposed on ENA as it is alcohol not-for human consumption, and therefore necessarily included under the GST regime. That intent of the Constitution of India was acknowledged and statutorily incorporated, by virtue of Section 174(1)(i) of the UPGST Act. It repealed UPVAT Act, 2008 except with respect to laws-to tax goods included under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, to the Constitution of Indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liquor, i.e., it was not an alcohol fit for human consumption. While dealing with that issue, the Supreme Court considered the exact nature of industrial alcohol. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of that report, read as under: "9. The seminal issue to be answered in this appeal is about the purport of the Notification dated 6-11-2010 as published on 10-11-2012 and whether it is in the nature of legislation by the State on the subject of industrial alcohol. Alcohol can generally be classified into the following categories: "I. Isopropyl alcohol (or IPA or isopropanol) is a compound with the chemical formula CH3CHOHCH3. It is a colourless, flammable chemical compound with a strong odour. As an isopropyl group linked to a hydroxyl group, it is the simplest example of a secondary alcohol, where the alcohol carbon atom is attached to two other carbon atoms. If consumed, isopropanol is converted into acetone in the liver, which makes it extremely toxic. Often used for disinfecting skin an antiseptic. II. Methyl Alcohol (or Methanol): Chemical formula - CH3OH: Not for human consumption. If consumed, can cause blindness and death. Methanol acquired the name wood alcohol becau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Agarwal would therefore submit, in law it cannot be disputed, Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) is nothing but Rectified Spirit that has undergone certain physical changes, by adopting physical means like redistillation and rectification to remove impurities. Through that process, it becomes purer and is therefore known as ENA. If at all, it is rendered more unfit for human consumption on account of the purity of its alcohol content being enhanced. To manufacture alcohol for human consumption, further processes including addition and mixing of colouring and flavouring agents (compounding), as well as dilution with water must be applied. The concoction is then left for maturation, to be bottled and used as an 'intoxicating liquor' or 'potable liquor' known as Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) etc. All throughout, such processes, the chemical composition of Ethyl alcohol or Ethanol remains the same, yet ENA as such can never be called or classified as "alcoholic liquor for human consumption". 39. Shri Pawan Shree Agarwal learned counsel for some of the other petitioners has adopted the submissions advanced by Shri Sinha and Shri Rahul Agarwal. He further emphasized, by virtue of Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is only a raw material used to manufacture alcoholic beverage. It contains over 95 percent alcohol by volume. Adopting the submission advanced by Shri Sinha, it has further been submitted, considering unequivocal pronouncements made by the Supreme Court-in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (supra), the said commodity ENA is not an alcoholic liquor for human consumption and, that it can never be. 42. Shri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General has stoutly defended the levy of UPVAT on ENA, under the UPVAT Act. He would submit, prior to issuance of the impugned Notification dated 17.12.2019, the commodity ENA suffered UPVAT at the rate of 32.5 percent. However, by virtue of the impugned Notification and introduction of the new entry 1-A, to Schedule IV to the UPVAT Act, the said commodity became taxable at a lower rate of tax, being 5 percent, with effect from 09.12.2019. Thus, the State Government has reduced the rate of tax on ENA. Hence, there can be no quarrel to the same. As to the identity of ENA, the learned AAG has also referred in extenso, to the discussion made by the Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Ajanta Bottlers and Blenders Private Ltd. (supra). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... furnishes a ground of prohibiting consumption of intoxicating liquor. On reading Entries 6, 8 and 51 in List II, this Court held that so far as potable alcohols are concerned, they are squarely covered by Entry 8. They are within the exclusive domain of the State. It was further held that rectified spirit was an industrial alcohol. The State has no power whatsoever to legislate in relation to industrial alcohol. However, the Court observed that in many cases the rectified spirit was an ingredient for intoxicating liquor or alcoholic liquor for human consumption. Hence, so long as alcoholic preparation can be diverted to human consumption, the States shall have the power to legislate as also to impose taxes on such diversion. This is also the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. [(1997) 2 SCC 715]." 43. Placing heavy reliance on the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court, it has been submitted, Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, to the Constitution of India is wide enough to take within its amplitude and cover, any law to impose tax on sale of ENA if that intoxicating liquor may be diverted to human consump....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regulations to ensure that non-potable alcohol is not diverted and misused as a substitute for potable alcohol. (c) The State may charge excise duty on potable alcohol and sales tax under Entry 52 of List II. However, sales tax cannot be charged on industrial alcohol in the present case, because under the Ethyl Alcohol (Price Control) Orders, sales tax cannot be charged by the State on industrial alcohol. (d) However, in case State is rendering any service, as distinct from its claim of so-called grant of privilege, it may charge fees based on quid pro quo. See in this connection, the observations of Indian Mica case [Indian Mica Micanite Industries v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 236] ." Denaturation of spirit meant for industrial use is meant to prevent misuse of non-potable alcohol for human consumption and as such specifically mentioned by the Court to be within the legislative competence of the State." 46. Reference has also been made to paragraphs 14 and 17 of the said report, which read as under: "14. It is to be noticed that the States under Entries 8 and 51 of List II read with Entry 84 of List I have exclusive privilege to legislate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uors from the State List to Union List. As a matter of fact, Parliament cannot take over the control of industries engaged in the production and manufacture of intoxicating liquors by making a declaration under Entry 52 of List I, since the said entry governs only Entry 24 in List II but not Entry 8 in List II." It was reiterated in the later part of the judgment as under: "It follows from the above discussion that the power to make a law with respect to manufacture and production and its prohibition (among other matters mentioned in Entry 8 in List II) belongs exclusively to the State Legislatures. Item 26 in the First Schedule to the IDR Act must be read subject to Entry 8 - and for that matter, Entry 6 - in List II. So read, the said item does not and cannot deal with manufacture, production of intoxicating liquors. All the petitioners before us are engaged in the manufacture of intoxicating liquors. The State Legislature is, therefore, perfectly competent to make a law prohibiting their manufacture and production - in addition to their sale, consumption, possession and transport - with reference to Entries 8 and 6 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constituti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties. It is Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA). While the petitioners contend; the same is alcohol of high purity, above 90%, by volume, the State does not dispute the same. In its counter affidavit, the State also makes pleadings to the same effect. Besides the admission made by the State, it is too late in the day to dispute or deliberate as to the true character or identity or contents of ENA. Thus, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Others Vs. Ajanta Bottlers and Blenders Private Ltd. (supra) had clearly opined - industrial alcohol is broadly categorised into three categories. The first being Isopropyl alcohol (or IPA or Isopropanol). It is a compound with chemical formula CH3CHOHCH3, linked to a hydroxyl group. It is the simplest example of a secondary alcohol where alcohol carbon is attached to two other carbon atoms. If consumed, Isopropanol is converted into acetone in the liver, making it extremely toxic. The second category of industrial alcohol is Methyl Alcohol or Methanol with chemical formula CH3OH. Its consumption leads to blindness and death. The third category of industrial alcohol is Ethyl Alcohol also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra) and as followed by a three-Judge bench of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Modi Distillery (supra). An alcoholic liquor having 90%-95% content of Ethanol is certainly not that commodity. Such alcohol is not, and it cannot be marketed for human consumption. If consumed, it would be unbearably toxic and, therefore, never fit for human consumption. Thus, it was held by the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra) - "alcoholic liquor for human consumption" is: "...that liquor which as it is is consumable in the sense capable of being taken by human beings as such as beverage of drinks. ..." 54. Though that law emerged in the context of Entry 84 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, to the Constitution of India (with reference to imposition of duties of excise) yet, it clearly interprets the term "alcoholic liquor for human consumption", as it now appears under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, to the Constitution of India. The earlier use of the plural of the word liquor is not material. Applying that law, the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court coul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of List I). Upon enactment of the 101st Constitution Amendment, that power is heavily curtailed (under the substituted Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, to the Constitution of India), to certain items specified therein namely, petroleum crude, high speed diesel, motor-spirit/petrol, natural gas, aviation turbine fuel and "alcoholic liquor for human consumption". A corresponding change was made by the Parliament to the definition of the term 'goods', under Section 2(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It was also substituted, to limit the same to the exact six items, finding mention in the substituted Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, to the Constitution of India. 58. Whether by virtue of Article 366 (12-A) read with Article 246-A of the Constitution of India or the substituted Entry No. 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, to the Constitution of India, the nuanced distinction, between those two Constitutional provisions would have no bearing on the controversy at hand. The State legislature remains denuded of its preexisting competence to enact a law to tax sale of alcoholic liquor not for human consumption, in both contingencies. 59. To tak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat Constitution Amendment, the only surviving legislative field to impose taxes (saved exclusively with the State legislatures), finds mention in Entry 54 (as substituted). Relevant to our discussion, it is only with respect to "alcoholic liquor for human consumption". Since ENA is not that, the State legislature cannot circumvent the Constitutional scheme by introducing a tax on its sale, by describing it as 'non-GST alcohol'. 63. That phraseology, used to describe ENA is, in any case, a misnomer. It is impermissible. By virtue of Article 366(12-A) of the Constitution of India, 'non-GST alcohol' may only be "alcohol for human consumption". By virtue of the clear dictum of the Supreme Court in Synthetic and Chemicals Limited (supra), Modi Distillery (supra), VAM Organic Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and Ajanta Bottlers and Blenders Private Ltd. (supra), ENA is not fit for human consumption. Hence, for reasons noted above, it would remain a 'GST-alcohol', if such a thing exists. Second, the intended use to which a commodity may be put, and the character or identity of the commodity manufactured therefrom, would never be relevant to impose a differential rate of tax on s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....try alone. It can have no surrogate mother i.e., a general entry, as has been attempted to be established by the learned AAG. 66. In M.P.V. Sundararamier & Co. Vs. State of A.P., AIR 1958 SC 468, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held as below: "(i) ... (ii) Under the constitutional scheme of division of powers under-legislative lists, there are separate entries pertaining to taxation and other laws. A tax cannot be levied under a general entry. (iii) A Constitution is an organic document and has to be so treated and construed." 67. Similar principle was laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Mysore & Ors. Vs. D. Cawasji & Company & Ors. (supra). It was reiterated in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Excise Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad, 1973 All LJ 629. The principle thus laid down by the Supreme Court has been consistently applied without exception. Plainly, Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, to the Constitution reads thus: "8. Intoxicating liquors, that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors." 68. That Entry only creates a field of legisl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be indicated, the expression was given a wide scope because it came after the word "land" and then followed "rights over land" as an explanation of "land". Both were wide classes. The object of using them for subject-matter of legislation, was obviously, to lay down a wide power to legislate. But, in the context of single point sales tax, subject to special conditions when imposed on separate categories of specified goods, the expression was apparently meant to exhaustively enumerate the kinds of goods in a given list. The purpose of an enumeration in a statute dealing with sales tax at a single point in a series of sales would, very naturally, be to indicate the types of goods each of which would constitute a separate class for a series of sales. Otherwise, the listing itself loses all meaning and would be without any purpose behind it". Similarly, the phrase "that is to say" appearing in Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, to the Constitution of India may never be read to bestow legislative competence on the State legislatures to enact a law to tax "intoxicating liqours". That competence must remain confined to the matters specified after that phrase, appearing unde....