Retrospective regulatory fee on industrial alcohol upheld where statute authorises retroactive rule-making and no excessiveness is shown

Retrospective operation of the amendment introducing an administrative fee was valid because the parent statute expressly authorised rules with retrospective effect, and no independent ground of invalidity was shown. The levy of administrative fee on industrial alcohol was upheld as a regulatory fee aimed at preventing diversion for human consumption; strict quid pro quo was not required, provided the fee was not excessive. The challenge to excessiveness failed because the amount fixed was not shown to be unreasonable merely by reference to an earlier figure accepted in a different context. The regulatory fee and its retrospective application were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendment introducing the administrative fee could validly be given retrospective effect. (ii) Whether the levy of administrative fee on industrial alcohol was illegal or excessive.

Issue (i): Whether the amendment introducing the administrative fee could validly be given retrospective effect.

Analysis: Section 72(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 expressly permits rules under the Act to be made with retrospective effect. The challenge to retrospectivity was not supported by any independent ground showing lack of competence or legal infirmity in the rule-making power.

Conclusion: The retrospective operation of the amendment was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy of administrative fee on industrial alcohol was illegal or excessive.

Analysis: The levy was examined as a regulatory fee meant to prevent diversion of industrial alcohol for human consumption. A regulatory fee need not rest on strict quid pro quo so long as it is not excessive. The amount fixed was upheld on the footing that the earlier figure accepted in another context did not establish that a higher fee would necessarily be excessive with the passage of time.

Conclusion: The levy was legal and not shown to be excessive.

Final Conclusion: The impugned regulatory fee and its retrospective application were upheld, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A regulatory fee imposed to prevent diversion of industrial alcohol to human consumption is valid without strict quid pro quo if it is not excessive, and retrospective rule-making is permissible where the parent statute expressly authorises it.

---