1 2026:CGHC:20403-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1966 of 2025 Pioneer Chemical Company (A Proprietorship Firm) Through- Its Proprietor Namely Subodh Kumar Bansal Son Of Harish Kumar Bansal, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of 286/7, Ahiwara Road, Kumhari, Block Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Special Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax (Excise), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. A.G. Mr Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Advocate SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.05.02 11:30:51 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. Advocate General for the Respondent No. 1/ State and Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2/ UOI. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the present case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold and declare that the impugned enactment i.e. Chhattisgarh Molasses Control and Regulation Rules, 2022 (Annexure P-1) is ultra vires to the Constitution of India. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the parties that in an identical matter bearing WPC No. 3580 of 2022 (M/s. Kedia Trading Versus State Of Chhattisgarh & Another) 3 and other connected matter, had allowed the petition, vide order dated 27.03.2026 and observing as follows:- “44. It is not at all in dispute that Molasses is a by- product of sugar industry and it is not fit for human consumption in its raw form. It further does not contain alcohol and becomes capable of producing alcohol only after fermentation. As such, the Molasses cannot per se be equated with "Intoxicant', 'intoxicating liquor' or 'exisable article' as defined under the Excise Act. The Excise Act is a legislation dealing with intoxicating liquor and intoxicating drugs. Therefore, bringing Molasses within the regulatory fold of the Excise Act, without statutory backing, is impermissible. The State's attempt to regulate Molasses on the ground that it may be used for producing alcohol amounts to over- extension of legislative power. Accepting such a contention would permit the State to regulate any substance capable of fermentation, which is constitutionally impermissible. The State relies on Section 8(c) of the Excise Act, which refers to "any other base" used for manufacture of liquor. This Court is unable to accept that the expression "any other base" can be stretched to include molasses in its raw, non-intoxicant form. Such interpretation would override the definition provisions, expand the Act beyond its 4 object, and further violate settled principles of statutory interpretation. Section 62 of the Excise Act empowers the State to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. It is a settled principle that rules cannot enlarge the scope of the parent statute. The Rules of 2022 extend control to non-intoxicant uses, impose licensing and duty, regulate ordinary trade activity. This clearly travels beyond the scope of the Excise Act and is therefore ultra vires. A plain reading of the Rules shows two categories: use for distillation (valid domain of State), and use for industrial, agricultural, cattle feed etc. The latter category clearly falls outside the Excise domain. 45. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the Rules of 2022 is ultra vires the Constitution. 46. As a result, all the writ petitions stand allowed. The petitioners would be entitled to consequential relief(s) flowing from this order.” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present petition is identical to that of WPC No. 3580/2022, this petition may also be allowed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material on record, it is evidence that the facts and issue involved in the present petition is identical to WPC No. 3580/2022, this Court deems it 5 appropriate to take the same view as has been taken in WPC No. 3580/2022 and other connected matters. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 27.03.2026 passed in WPC No. 3580/2022 and other connected matters. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika