DC Edition | Alcohol tax: States win victory

In addition to improving the state government’s finances, the majority judgment seals the issue of regulatory overlap in the Union List, State List and Simultaneous List. Litigation over this began in 1956 over the regulation of sugar cane, which was under different titles of State List, Concurrent List and Union List.

Although the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that an entry in the Concurrent List does not take away powers of the state government under the State List, several Supreme Court judgments, especially Synthetics & Chemicals (1989) and Vam Organics Chemicals (1997) which were pronounced later, expressed different opinions on this issue. Therefore, the matter was referred in 2010 for trial by the higher court.

The nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud heard the matter over six days in April 2024 and delivered the judgment on October 23. liquor”, which means all types of alcoholic beverages produced – not just alcohol for human consumption.

Recognizing the overlap of entries in the State List and the Union List, the majority judgment held that if entry 52 of the Union list was interpreted as giving the Union complete control over industrial alcohol, entry 8 would be rendered redundant. A harmonious reading, therefore, would require that the specific scope described in Entry 8 of the State List take precedence over Entry 52 of the Union List.

It is the second trial in recent months, after the one on the mine tax, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of state governments, highlighting the robustness of checks and balances