COURT'S ACTION

The three-judge bench did not decide the case on merits. Instead, it:

• Referred six constitutional questions to a larger bench for reconsideration
• Noted potential conflict between the 7-judge Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. (1990) precedent and subsequent 5-judge Constitution Bench decisions (SIEL Ltd., Belsund Sugar, etc.)
• Observed that the interpretation of Section 18-G in Synthetics may render Entry 33(a) of List III "nugatory or otiose"

Key Questions Referred:

1. Impact of Section 2 (declaration of scheduled industries) on Section 18-G and Entry 33
2. Which constitutional entry governs Section 18-G (Entry 52, List I or Entry 33, List III)
3. Whether absence of a notified order under Section 18-G preserves State legislative power
4. Whether Section 18-G's mere existence presumes Central occupation of the field
5. Whether Section 18-G ousts State power under Entry 33(a)
6. Whether Synthetics & Chemicals correctly interpreted Section 18-G vis-à-vis State regulatory power

---

RELEVANCE TO MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT

Indirect Precedential Value:

• The constitutional questions on State vs Central power to regulate industrial alcohol are applicable to Maharashtra's BPA regulatory framework
• Maharashtra's licence fee structures for denatured spirit (similar FL-III, FL-IV categories) could face analogous challenges
• The quid pro quo principle for regulatory fees remains valid across States

Not Direct Authority: This is a U.P. case involving different statutes, but the underlying legislative competence issues affect all State excise laws.

---

CURRENT STATUS

Unresolved: The referred questions require a larger Constitutional Bench ruling. Until then, the interim stay granted in SLP 16505/2004 likely protects U.P.'s fee collection, but the legal position remains unsettled.

Maharashtra excise authorities should monitor the larger bench decision for implications on BPA licensing fee legality.