Judgment By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners pray for a writ declaring Rules 4A, 9A and 11A of the Bihar Molasses (Control) Rules, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') ultra vires and also commanding the respondents to refrain from realising different imposts under these rule from the petitioners. 2. Rule 4A of the Rules reads as follows: "The Government shall fix from time to time the rate of administrative charge per maund or quintal of molasses released for sale. This rate shall be notified in the Official Gazette. Such administrative charge shall be exclusive of the price payable to sugar factory. Every sugar factory shall deposit the amount of administrative charge payable to Government on molasses released to it for sale and produce the treasury challan showing such payment to the Excise Officer posted to the sugar factory before actual delivery of the released molasses to the purchaser." Rule 9A of the Rules runs as follows: "(1) No stockist shall engage in the business of sale or resale of molasses and hold stocks for that purpose except under the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the Controller of Molasses in Form M.F. 9 : Provided, however, licence for engaging in the business of sale or resale and holding fur that purpose stocks not exceeding 25 quintals of molasses at any time may be granted by the Excise Superintendent/Assistant Commissioner of Excise of the district where the stockist normally carried on his business : Provided, further, that a licence fee of Rs.100/- and Rs.25/- shall be payable for the grant or renewal of a licence to engage in the business of sale or resale and hold stocks exceeding 25 quintals and up to 25 quintals of molasses, respectively. (2) The application for a licence shall be made before the Excise Superintendent/ Assistant Commissioner of Excise in Form M.F. 8". Rule 11A of the Rules provides as follows: "The State Government shall fix from time to time by notified orders the permit fee, per quintal of molasses for issue of movement order. (2) The application for a licence shall be made before the Excise Superintendent/ Assistant Commissioner of Excise in Form M.F. 8". Rule 11A of the Rules provides as follows: "The State Government shall fix from time to time by notified orders the permit fee, per quintal of molasses for issue of movement order. A person desiring to move molasses from sugar factory premises or from any other place of storage shall deposit in Government treasury, the amount payable to Government at the rate so fixed and shall also present the challan along with his application for obtaining the movement order before the Excise Officer posted at the sugar factory concerned or before the Excise Sub-Inspector in whose jurisdiction the place of storage is situated. The said Excise Officer shall check the deposit made and if it is found to be in order, forward the application for the movement order with the challan to the Controller of Molasses for issue of the movement order to him. These were not the original rules but were introduced by amendments in the year 1961, 1968 and 1967 respectively. The case of the petitioners is that these rules are ultra vires as they impose charges and fees without any provision for such imposition in the Bihar Molasses (Control) Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under which they have been framed. The imposition under these rules is also challenged by the petitioners on the ground that they are fees and there being no quid pro quo between the amount realised and the service rendered, they are invalid. 3. The Act, nowhere empowers the State Government to levy any charge or fee but it has been contended on behalf of the State Government (Respondent No.1) that Section 13 (1) of the Act, empowers it to make such rules. Section 13 (1) of the Act, says that the State Government, may, by notification, make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. According to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, the purposes of the Act, could not be carried out without imposition of the charge and fees levied under the aforesaid rules and, therefore they are legal and not ultra vires. It has further been contended that fees can be; levied by the State Government even without legislative enactment as Article 265 of the Constitution refers only to tax and not to fee. It has further been contended that fees can be; levied by the State Government even without legislative enactment as Article 265 of the Constitution refers only to tax and not to fee. 4. In our opinion, there is no substance in the contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. True it is that Article 265 of the Constitution says: "No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law" and the expression 'fee' is not used therein, but Article 366 (28) of the constitution defines 'taxation' and 'tax' as follows: "Taxation' includes the imposition of any tax or impost, whether general or local or special and 'tax shall be construed accordingly". Undoubtedly, 'impost' is a word of wide import which includes 'fee' as well. Therefore, the word 'tax' in Article 275 includes 'fee' as well. It was pointed out by B.K. Mukherjee, J. in Sri Jagannath Ramanuj Das Vs. State of Orissa that there is no generic difference between a tax and a fee and both are different forms in which the taxing power of a State manifests itself. Thereafter the learned Judge proceeded to point out the difference between tax and fee. The aforesaid observation of the learned Judge also supports the view that the 'expression' 'tax' in Article 265 of the Constitution includes 'fee' and no fee can be levied or collected except by authority of law. 5. It is important to note in this connection that in all the three lists of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution 'fee' has been made an item on which legislatures may make laws. In List I-union List-it is item no. 96; and in List II-State List-it is item no. 66 and in List III-Concurrent List-it is item no. 47. The power to legislate under these items relates only to any of the matters in the Lists concerned. Read with Article 246 of the Constitution it will mean that the Parliament has exclusive power to make laws relating to fees in respect of any of the matters in List I and the legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof relating to fees in respect of any of the matters in List II. Similarly, so far as fee in respect ion any of the matters in the concurrent List is concerned, Parliament as well as the State Legislatures have got power to make laws. This also shows that fees can be imposed only by legislative enactments and not by an administrative act. 6. Reference may be made in this connection to Article 277 of the Constitution as well which lays down that any taxes, duties, cesses or fees which, immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, were being lawfully levied by the Government of any State or by any municipality or other local authority or body for the purposes of the State, municipality, district or other local area may, notwithstanding that those taxes, duties, cesses or fees are mentioned in the Union List, continue to be levied and to be applied to the same purposes until provision to the contrary is made by Parliament by law. This Article also indicates that fees could be levied only lawfully, that is, legislative enactments and not in exercise of administrative or executive powers. 7. In the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Laskhmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, Mukherjee, J. pointed out: "It seems to us that though .levying of fees is only a particular form of the exercise of the taxing power of the State, our Constitution has placed fees under a separate category for purposes of legislation and at the end of each one of the three legislative lists, it has given a power to the particular Legislature to legislate on the imposition of fees in respect to every one of the item dealt with in the list itself..." The question whether the word 'tax' in Article 265 of the Constitution includes fees or not was not expressly decided. It was however observed by the learned Judge that it was absolutely necessary that the levy of fee should on the face of the legislative provision be co-related to the expenses incurred by the Government in rendering the service. This observation also supports the view that fee could be levied only by 1cgislative provision and not otherwise. 8. It was however observed by the learned Judge that it was absolutely necessary that the levy of fee should on the face of the legislative provision be co-related to the expenses incurred by the Government in rendering the service. This observation also supports the view that fee could be levied only by 1cgislative provision and not otherwise. 8. In our opinion, by the power vested in it under section 13 (1) of the Act, the State of Bihar could not make rules for imposition of charges and fees as contained in rules 4A, 9A and 11A of the Rules in absence of any express provision for imposition of such fees or even a provision giving power to the State Government to frame rules for imposition of such fees. We, accordingly, hold that rules 4A, 9A and 11A of the Rules are ultra vires of the Rule making power of the State Government under Section 13 of the Act. As the petition succeeds on this ground alone, it is not necessary to consider whether the imposition is bad on account of the absence of quid pro quo between the imposition and service rendered by the State. 9. In the result, the application is allowed and rules 4A, 9A and 11A of the Rules are declared ultra vires. The respondents are also commanded to refrain from realising different imposts under these rules from the petitioners till the State legislature makes law clothing the State Government with necessary powers. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.