1 2025:CGHC:59624-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 903 of 2025 M/s Goldi Wine Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Managing Director Bhupender Pal Singh, S/o Surjit Singh Bhatia, R/o Dayalband, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Excise (Seperate Revenue), D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Excise Commissioner Government Of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Assistant Commissioner (Excise) Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09 .12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.12.09 17:17:33 +0530 2 2. The matter is listed today for orders on default as there is delay of 21 days in filing this appeal and no application for condonation of delay has been filed. 3. Since Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State has no objection if delay in filing the appeal, therefore, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 1706 of 2001 (M/s Goldi Wine Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 5. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 842 of 2025 (Satvinder Singh Bhatia vs. State of Chhattisgarh& Others) vide order dated 21.11.2025 observing as follows : “14. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge observed that the petitioners have imported spirit and malt as deined in CG Excise Act, 1915. The malt is nothing but fermented liquor. The spirit as deined in the Excise Act, 1915 means any liquor containing alcohol obtained by distillation. Section 2(11) deines import which means to bring in the State. From the plain 3 reading of the provisions of the Act, 2000 it is quite vivid that by virtue of Section 3 the new state of Chhattisgarh has been formed with its territories as speciied in the section. By virtue of Section 5 irst Schedule of the Constitution has been amended from the appointed day i.e. 01.11.2000, entry 26 has been inserted and in the list of State Chhattigarh has been inserted with speciied territories as speciied in Section 3 of the Act. This supports the submission of the State that the State of Chhattisgarh being new State, any substances which is brought in the State from the State of Madhya Pradesh will be imported. Thus, it will not be intra-State trade but it is inter State trade. Learned Single Judge also observed that entry in the State of Chhattisgarh from the State of Madhya Pradesh even if NOC was given prior to reorganisation of the State, it will not save the petitioners from paying the import duty as these circumstances have been caused due to operation of law and no principle of estoppel is applicable. Similarly where demand has been made on account of change of law and by operation of law only and dismissed the writ petition iled by the appellant herein. 15. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents 4 appended with writ petition as also with writ appeal and also considering the indings recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition iled by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. 16. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 842 of 2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 842 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 842 of 2025. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 21.11.2025 passed in WA No. 842 of 2025 (Satvinder Singh Bhatia vs. State of Chhattisgarh& Others). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan