IMPORTANT POINT
When the parent Act permits retrospectivity of the rules framed thereunder, such retrospective operation cannot be challenged.
No analogy can be drawn from a case having distinguishing facts.

JUDGMENT

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. The Appellant before us assail the concurrent findings of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, upholding the legality of the levy of an Administrative Fee at the rate of 50 paise per bulk litre or any other rate as may be fixed by the Government from time to time on industrial alcohol obtained from a distillery.

2. The Appellant is a manufacturer of Ethyl Acetate, the basic raw material for which is industrial alcohol. The Appellant has been receiving allotments of denatured spirit from the Respondents since 1972. By way of an amendment to Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Denatured Spirit and Denatured Spirituous Preparations Ruled, 1971 (1971 Rules for brevity), the collection of a gallonage fee, under the head of privilege fees, at the rate of 1 per bulk litre was introduced. The Appellant filed a writ petition in 1995 contending that the levy and collection of such an amount without rendering any service is illegal, arbitrary and without justification. The High Court vide its order dated 13.10.1997 disposed of the writ petition, directing the Appellant to approach the concerned authorities seeking a refund and with a direction to the authorities to consider the same in accordance with the law. In pursuance of G.O.M. No. 147 dated 6.3.1998, the Government introduced the collection of Administrative Fee of 50 paise per bulk litre in lieu of withdrawal of collection of the abovementioned privilege fees as per the orders of the Seven Judge Bench of this Court in Synthetics & Chemicals Limited vs. State of U.P. (1990) 1 SCC 109. This Rule was given retrospective effect from 25.10.1989. The Government therefore responded to the Appellant by issuing G.O.Rt. No. 313 dated 13.3.2000, whereby in accordance with G.O.M. No. 147, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise was permitted to adjust the excess amount of privilege fees paid with effect from 25.10.1989 towards future allotments of alcohol for industrial purposes against Administrative Fee. Since the Appellants had paid an amount of Rs.2,09,500, it was to get a refund of Rs.1,04,750 after the adjustment of an equal amount towards administrative fees. Aggrieved by this order, the Appellant approached the High Court once again, seeking the issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring that the amendment of Rule 3 of the 1971 Rules as amended by G.O.M. No. 147 is arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires and unenforceable, and a further declaration that the Appellant is entitled to the refund of the entire amount collected as gallonage fees with interest at 18% per annum. The Appellant’s case was that the State cannot make any law in purported exercise of its legislative competence with reference to Entry 8 of List II to levy privilege fees or any other fees in respect of alcoholic liquors which are not meant or fit for human consumption.

3. The High Court placed reliance on Synthetics and Chemicals Limited, wherein this Court observed as follows:

“The State, in exercise of powers under Entry 8 of List II and by appropriate law may, however, regulate and that regulation could be to prevent the conversion of alcoholic liquors for industrial use to one for human consumption and for the purpose of regulation, the regulatory fees only could be justified. In fact, the regulation should be the main purpose, the fee or earning out of it has to be incidental.”

The High Court also considered this aspect of the law in Vam Organics Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (1997) 2 SC 715, the Appellants wherein were manufacturers of ‘vinyl acetate monomer’, for which industrial alcohol is the main stock. The Appellants therein were liable to pay a denaturation fee at the rate of 7 paise per litre. They challenged this, contending that the State of U.P. had no power to legislate or levy taxes in respect of industrial alcohol, and that the levy was bad as it was not based on a quid pro quo basis. The Supreme Court held that “so