ORDER : 1. The petitioner-M/s. Kap Chem Ltd., has filed this writ petition in this Court on 19.01.2015 claiming refund of Rs.2.86 Crores of the fees paid by it for taking RS-2 licence under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise (Rectified Spirits) Rules, 1967 for the period 1997-98 to 2002-03. The petitioner has interalia challenged the impugned Endorsement issued by the Respondent-Excise Commissioner in Karnataka Annexure-C dated 25.11.2014 rejecting the said claim of refund of fees. 2. The relevant portion of the impugned Endorsement Annexure-C dated 25.11.2014 which was passed in pursuance of the directions of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in W.P.No.4749/2004 decided on 28.01.2003 is quoted below for ready reference:- “Your request letters cited at reference have been examined. As per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, you have not placed necessary material in support of your claim for refund of fee paid on purchase of Rectified Spirit. However, on the basis of available records in file it is observed that you were holding an RS (2) licence under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise (Rectified Spirit) Rules, 1967 and paid fee on Rectified Spirit to the Excise Department during 1997/98 to 2002/03. Your contention for the relief of declaration of the Karnataka Excise (Excise Duties and Fees) (Amendment) Rules, 2001 dated 09-02-2001 as un-constitutional cannot be accepted because, the fee on Rectified Spirit was levied during the period 1998 to 2003 as per the provisions of Rule-2 and Schedule C thereunder of the Karnataka Excise (Excise Duties and Fees) Rules, 1968 wherein the Excise Department has levied and collected the fee as per the aforesaid Rules. These Rules were in force till 01-04-2007. Hence your request letters dated: 06-08-2001, 21-01- 2003, 04-08-2003, 16-01-2014, 15-07-2014 & 12-11-2014 claiming refund of fee of Rs.2,86,20,000 collected towards litre fee pertaining to the period 1998 to 2003 on procurement of Rectified Spirit by Excise Authorities is not justiciable. Hence, your claim cannot be considered. Sd/- Excise Commissioner” 3. The Rule-2C of the aforesaid Karnataka Excise (Excise Duties and Fees), Rules, 1968 prior to its deletion with effect from 01.04.2007 which governed the period in question of the present petitioner from 1997-98 to 2002-03 reads as under:- 2C. Hence, your claim cannot be considered. Sd/- Excise Commissioner” 3. The Rule-2C of the aforesaid Karnataka Excise (Excise Duties and Fees), Rules, 1968 prior to its deletion with effect from 01.04.2007 which governed the period in question of the present petitioner from 1997-98 to 2002-03 reads as under:- 2C. (Fee) on Rectified Spirit or Denatured Spirit.- (a) [No licensee who produces rectified spirit out of molasses or manufactures denatured spirit shall issue rectified spirit or denatured spirit so produced or manufactured unless he pays the fee specified in Schedule C on such rectified spirit or denatured spirit. (b) No licensee shall import rectified spirit or denatured spirit unless he pays the (fee) specified in Schedule C. (c) No Licensee shall Export,- (i) rectified spirit (xxx); or (ii) denatured spirit; (Provided that no fee shall be levied on Neutral spirit/Extra neutral spirit exported by the licensee holding a licence to manufacture spirit out of molasses, who has set up re-distillation plant but not primary distillery and obtained rectified spirit on payment of fee prescribed under clause (a)] 2C. (Fee) on Rectified Spirit or Denatured Spirit.- 4. The Schedule C prescribed under the aforesaid Rule 2C specified the amount of fees to be paid for the manufacture and sale of rectified spirit. The said Schedule C issued under Notification No. FD 9 PES 2002 dated 12.06.2002 is also quoted below for ready reference:- “SCHEDULE C [See Rule 2-C] Rate of Fee Sl. No. Name of the Spirit Fee 1 Rectified Spirit (a) if rectified spirit is issued under clause (a) of Rule 2-C.- (i) for own use and there is no incidence of sale Rupees four per bulk litre (ii) for sale to others Rupees six and paise fifty per bulk litre (iii) for sale to the licensees holding licence to manufacture spirit out of molasses who have set up re-distillation plant but not primary distillery, for redistillation and to export neutral spirit or extra neutral spirit. Rupees three per bulk litre (b) if rectified spirit is imported under clause (b) of Rule 2-C Rupees three per bulk litre (c) if rectified spirit is exported under clause (c) of Rule 2-C.- (i) outside Karnataka but within India Rupees three per bulk litre Schedule C substituted by Notification No. FD 9 PES 2002, dated 12-06-2002 and shall be deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 1-4-2002. KARNATAKA EXCISE (E.D. AND F.) RULES, 1968 Sl. No. Name of the Spirit Fee (ii) outside India Rupee one per bulk litre 2 Denatured spirit Rupees two and paise fifty only [3. Denatured anhydrous alcohol supplied to oil companies for the purpose of mixing with petrol Rupees two per bulk litre] Note.- For the purpose of this Schedule rectified spirit includes spirit of any strength.]” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.N. Nanja Reddy urged before the Court that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Constitution Bench decision in the case of Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd., vs. State of U.P. & Others [ AIR 1990 SC 1927 ], had held that only the Central Government or Parliament had the power to impose such tax or duty on the manufacture of industrial alcohol which includes rectified spirit and not the State Government and therefore, the fees paid by the petitioner who purchased the rectified spirit for the manufacture of acetic acid and allied chemicals could not be called upon to pay such licence fees and the entire fees paid by the petitioner during the contemporary period of 1997 to 2003 deserves to be refunded back to it. 6. These contentions were vehemently opposed by the learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. Aditya Sondhi appearing for the State, who submitted that contrary to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Constitution Bench decision in Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd., (supra), had upheld the power of the State Government under Entry 2 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India to make appropriate laws to regulate the manufacture and sale of industrial alcohol including the rectified spirit and such regulatory power undisputedly included the power to impose licence fees and since the petitioner held during the contemporary period the RS-2 licence issued to it under the provisions of Karnataka Excise (Rectified Spirits) Rules, 1967, which regulates possession and use of Rectified Spirits and therefore, the petitioner was liable to obtain the said RS-2 Licence and pay the prescribed fees under Rule-2C of the Karnataka Excise (Excise Duties and Fees), Rules, 1968 and which he paid during contemporary period for obtaining such licence and therefore, there is no question of claiming the refund of such fees paid by the petitioner. 7. 7. He urged that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not declared the Karnataka Excise (Rectified Spirits) Rules, 1967, framed by the State as ultra vires and unconstitutional and therefore, the question of refunding the fees paid by the petitioner does not arise and he further submitted that the fees paid under Rule- 2C quoted above is distinct from the tax or duty payable under the said Rules and therefore, the refund claim of the petitioner was not only without any foundation but contrary to the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd., (supra). 8. I have heard the learned counsels and considered the submissions made at the bar. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the refund claim of the petitioner of the fees paid for obtaining the Licence for Rectified Spirits is absolutely misconceived and belied and negatived by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd., (supra). The relevant portion of the said decision in Paras 104 and 105 are quoted below for ready reference:- “104. …………….. These questions about the privilege and the doctrine of police powers in fact would be material to be considered when the question about the various levies imposed by the State in respect of alcoholic beverages is considered and so far as the present cases are concerned which pertain to only alcoholic liquors which are not for human consumption that is which are meant for industrial use, the only question will be as to whether the State could justify the respective levies under any of the entries in List II. The main theme of the argument on behalf of the State has been that they have imposed levies because the alcohol which is not for human consumption is a commodity which could be easily converted into alcoholic liquors for human consumption and therefore the levies have been imposed assuming that it is for human consumption or in other words the contention has been that these levies have been imposed in order to prevent the conversion of alcoholic liquors which are not for human consumption to those which are for human consumption. A contention therefore was suggested that these levies could be justified as regulatory fees although it was frankly conceded that although the revenue earned out of it is substantial and may not be justifiable as fees but have been imposed and it was therefore that the main theme on behalf of the respondents has been based on the doctrine of the privilege of the State to trade in these commodities as that trade is considered to be obnoxious and injurious to public health. 105. In our opinion, therefore so far as the present case is concerned the State in exercise of powers under Entry 2 (sic !) list II of and by appropriate law regulate and that regulation could be to prevent the conversion of alcoholic liquors for industrial use to one for human consumption and for 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 and that is why the learned counsel appearing for the State attempted to use this terminology by saying that the purpose is regulation, the earnings are incidental but frankly conceded that in fact the earnings are substantial. In fact in some of the excise laws in the States they have even used terminology relying on the doctrine of privilege and parting with privilege but in my opinion it is not necessary for us to go into these questions in greater detail as we are not here concerned with the trade in alcoholic liquors meant for human consumption and therefore in view of clear demarcation of authority under various items in the three lists, Entry 8 List II could not be invoked to justify the levies which have been imposed by the State in respect of alcoholic liquors which are not meant for human consumption”. 10. According to the said binding precedent, it is clear that to regulate the business relating to rectified spirit, the State Government had requisite legislative power to enact the said Rules in 1967 and read with the Rules of 1968 under which Rule-2C was enacted as quoted above, the State could levy the said licence fees even from the petitioner who purchased the rectified spirit for manufacture of its industrial products namely, “acetic acid and allied chemicals”. 11. 11. The fees paid for the licence to manufacture, sell, purchase or stock of the rectified spirit, which is an industrial alcohol and just to avoid its conversion into potable liquor for human consumption, which was the main ground of attack to the Rules of 1968 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd., has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Constitution Bench decision and the regulatory measures including the levy of fees for such licence. 12. It is well settled that the levy in the form of fees having at its roots, the concept of quid pro quo is different and distinct from the levy of tax and duties, which go to the general coffers of the State. The very fact that the petitioner obtained and was given RS-2 licence to deal with the said commodity like rectified spirit and for which, the fees was chargeable under Rule 2C of 1968 Rules and which was duly paid by the petitioner for the contemporary period is enough to deny the claim of refund of the same. The said Rules of 1967 and 1968 have never been challenged by the petitioner and there is no judgment either of this Court or of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd., (supra), having struck down these Rules taking away the bottom of levy of such fees by the Respondent-Department. Therefore, the question of asking for refund of fees duly paid under these Rules which have held the field during the contemporary period does not arise. 13. The petitioner, as noted in the impugned Endorsement Annexure-C dated 25.11.2014 on the contrary, failed to lead any material to support the claim of the refund of fees paid on purchase of rectified spirit and the Respondent-Excise Commissioner has clearly stated in the impugned order that despite failure of the petitioner-company to adduce any material, he has found that the petitioner himself had obtained the RS-2 licence under the provisions of 1967 Rules. 14. 14. Thus, the petitioner is also estopped by the principles of estoppel and he acquiesced in the matter and therefore, the claim of refund of fees paid for obtaining such licence at its own end, the refund claim is not only barred by principles of estoppel but is otherwise is also not supported by any judgment or statute in favour of the petitioner holding such levy of fees as illegal or ultra vires at any point of time. On the contrary, the said levy under the regulatory measures for which the State had full legislative power under Entry 8, Entry 24 and 51 of List-II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India (inadvertently perhaps mentioned as Entry 2 of List-II in para-105 of the Constitution Bench decision quoted above, as Entry 2 of List-II apparently relates to “police” and has nothing to do with the levy of fees, duty or tax on alcoholic liquors etc.,). 15. In view of this, the present writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.