JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---The subject of imposition of taxes on machanically propelled vehicles is covered by Entry 57 of List II and Entry 35 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Entries respectively read thus : "57. Taxes on vehicles, whether mechanically propelled or not, suitable for use on roads, including tramcars subject to the provisions of Entry 35 of List III." "35. Mechanically propelled vehicles including the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied." Two enactments, (i) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 a Central Act, and (ii) The Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act 1958, a State Act, govern ownership and/or possession of 'motor vehicles' a term defined under section 2(1-B) of the Central Act and adopted by section 2(2-B) of the State Act. The Central Act has not laid down any principles on which taxes on motor vehicles are to be levied. The State Act is made to consolidate and amend the law relating to the taxation of motor vehicles in the State. Section 2(2-B) defines the term 'motor vehicle', section 2(4) defines 'quarter' and section 2(10) is a residuary provision mentioning that the words and expressions used, but no defined in the State Act will have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Central Act. Section 3(1), which is a charging section, reads thus : "3(1). Subject to the other provisions of this Act, on and from the 1st day of April, 1958 there shall be levied and collected on all motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State a tax at the rate fixed by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, but not exceeding the maximum rates specified in the First Schedule." Section 3(1) gives the details of taxation on certain vehicles owned by certain persons. Section 3(1)(b) provides that vehicles owned by firms and/or Companies would be taxed at thrice the rates fixed for others. Sub-section (2) of section 3 provides for giving an advance intimation in writing to the Taxation Authority in the prescribed manner that the vehicle will not be used or kept for use in the State during any period specified in the intimation. Sub-section (2) of section 3 provides for giving an advance intimation in writing to the Taxation Authority in the prescribed manner that the vehicle will not be used or kept for use in the State during any period specified in the intimation. It permits the Taxation Authority to issue in a prescribed manner a certificate that such motor vehicle was not used or kept for use in the State during the period specified in the said certificate. First proviso to this sub-section says that in case a vehicle is rendered incapable of being used or kept for use on account of any accident, mechanical defect or any other sufficient cause, which makes it impossible to give an advance intimation then such intimation may be given in the prescribed manner within a period of seven days from the date of occurrence of such accident, or such other cause. The second proviso deals with the situation where intimation is received after the commencement of the period on non-use and before the expiry of the said period. Sub-section (3) gives an overriding authority to the Transport Commissioner to give in a proper and genuine case such certificate even with retrospective effect. Section 4 deals with the manner of payment of tax. It has to be paid in advance at the annual rate or for each "quarter" at one forth of the annual rate plus ten percent of the amount, that amount being referred to as 'quarterly rate'. Section 6 provides for making some declarations about the vehicle at the time of deposit of the tax. Section 9 deals with the subject of refund. It read thus : "9(1). Section 6 provides for making some declarations about the vehicle at the time of deposit of the tax. Section 9 deals with the subject of refund. It read thus : "9(1). Where any tax is paid in advance for any period in respect of a motor vehicle and where the registered owner surrenders to the Taxation Authority the certificate of taxation issued in respect of such vehicle declaring that he will not, during the whole or part of the unexpired portion of the period for which tax has been paid use or keep for use in any public place in the State the motor vehicle from the date specified in the declaration, such owner shall, on application made in that behalf, and subject to such conditions (if any), as may be prescribed and on production of a certificate of non-use of the vehicle issued by the Taxation Authority be entitled to a refund of a sum equal to one-twelfth the annual rates of tax levied in respect of such vehicle for every complete calendar month which has not commenced. (2) Where any person has paid the tax in advance in respect of a motor vehicle, he shall be entitled, on the production of a certificate signed by the Registering Authority stating that the application for the registration of such vehicle has been refused, or the registration thereof has been suspended or cancelled or, to a refund of the tax in full or, as the case may be, for the period for which the registration of such vehicle is suspended or stands cancelled in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1). (3) Where a motor vehicle in respect of which the tax has been paid is altered or is used in such manner as to cause it to become a vehicle in respect of which the tax is leviable at a lower rate, the person who has paid such tax shall be entitled on the surrender of the certificate of taxation, to a refund of a sum equal to the difference between the amount which would be refundable to him in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) and the amount of the tax leviable on such vehicle at the lower rate; and the Taxation Authority shall cause an entry of such refund to be made in the certificate of taxation. (4) Now withstanding anything contained in subsection (1) a person shall be entitled to a refund of the tax as provided in that subsection if the Taxation Authority is satisfied that--- (a)(i) such person for reasons beyond his control, is not able to surrender the certificate of taxation, and (ii) the vehicle in respect of which the refund of the tax is being claimed will not be used in any public place during the period for which such refund is claimed; (4-A) Where a registered owner or any person having possession or control of a Motor vehicle has paid tax in excess of the amount due from him, the Taxation Authority shall, after ascertaining that no arrears of tax in respect of such vehicle for any period are due from such registered owner or person, refund the excess amount to such registered owner or person : Provided that if such registered owner or person sends an intimation in writing to the Taxation Authority that the amount refundable to him or any portion thereof should be appropriated towards payment of tax in respect of the vehicle for any future period specified in such intimation and submits the certificate of taxation for recording therein such payment of the tax, the Taxation Authority shall, after due verification made for the purpose, cause an entry under his signature to be made in the certificate of taxation and shall specify therein the future period in respect of which the refundable amount or, as the case may be, the portion thereof has been appropriated for payment of tax and shall refund the balance, if any, remaining after such appropriation to such owner or person. (5) Where any refund or tax in respect of any vehicle is made under this section, the Taxation Authority shall cause entry of such refund to be made in the certificate of taxation and also of the lower rate, and the date from which, such lower rate is levied." Section 11 deals with the subject of destination and utilisation of the proceeds of tax. They are to be credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State and thereafter seventy five percent of the proceeds of the tax for each quarter, after deducting the expenses of collection thereof not exceeding an amount equal to fifteen percent of such proceeds and the amount of contribution payable to local authorities under appropriation made by law in its behalf, has to be entered in and transferred to a separate account called the State Road Fund. Section 16 is a penal provision by which penalty is provided for against a registered owner or a person otherwise in possession or control or any motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State without payment of dues under the Act. 2. The State Legislature introduced on 26th March, 1987 in the Assembly L.A. Bill No. XIV of 1987 as a draft of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1987 (The Amending Act.) The Bill was passed on 6th April, 1987 and the Amending Act was brought into force retrospectively with effect from the date of introduction of the Bill as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1962. By the Amending Act, one-time tax on the whole life time of a motor cycle and tricycle at the rates specified in the Schedule (which is equivalent to 15 times the earlier annual rate) has been imposed. It takes away the provision of refund of taxes on such vehicles on the ground of non-use and provides for refund only in case of cancellation of registration of the vehicle on account of scrapping of it due to accident or any other reason. Sub-section (1-C) is added after sub-section (1-B) of section 3. Sub-section (4) added after subsection (3). Sub-section (6) is added in section 9. Rest of the amendments are by and large consequential. Sub-section (1-C), sub-section (4) of section 3 and sub-section (6) of section (9) of the Amending Act read thus : "(1-C)(a). Sub-section (1-C) is added after sub-section (1-B) of section 3. Sub-section (4) added after subsection (3). Sub-section (6) is added in section 9. Rest of the amendments are by and large consequential. Sub-section (1-C), sub-section (4) of section 3 and sub-section (6) of section (9) of the Amending Act read thus : "(1-C)(a). Subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall be levied and collected on all motor cycles and tricycles used or kept for use in the State, a one time tax--- (i) if registered after the date on which the provisions of this sub-section take effect (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as "that said date") at the rates specified in Part 1 of the Third Schedule and the tax levied and collected shall be for the life time of such motor cycles and tricycles. (ii) if already registered before the said date and on which tax is already paid under sub-section (1), at the rates specified in Part II of the Third Schedule; (iii) if first registered in any other State and thereafter on transfer thereof are registered in the State of Maharashtra after the said date; then having regard to the month of their first registration in that other State, at the rates specified in Part II to the Third Schedule. (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a), the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, revise the rate of one time tax specified in Part I of the Third Schedule, so however, that the increase in rate, if any, shall not exceed the maximum rates specified in Part III of the Third Schedule; and thereupon Part I of the Third Schedule shall stand amended accordingly : Provided that, any such revision, in the rate of tax shall not apply in respect of motor cycle or tricycle which is already registered and on which one time tax is already levied and collected under Clause (a) at the rates which were for the time being in force. (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clauses (a) and (b), there shall be levied and collected on a motor cycle and tricycle used or kept for use in the State by a person (not being an individual, a local authority, a public trust, an university or an educational institution), the one time tax at thrice the rate specified in Parts I or II of the Third Schedule, or fixed by the State Government under Clause (b) in respect of such motor cycle or tricycle, as the case may be. Explanation.---For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "motor cycle and tricycle" includes motor scooter, moped and cycle with attachment for propelling the same by mechanical power." "(4) Nothing in sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to motor cycle or tricycle on which one time tax is levied under sub-section (1-C)." ... ... ... Explanation.---For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "motor cycle and tricycle" includes motor scooter, moped and cycle with attachment for propelling the same by mechanical power." "(4) Nothing in sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to motor cycle or tricycle on which one time tax is levied under sub-section (1-C)." ... ... ... Sub-section (6) of section 9 : "(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where a tax has been paid under sub-section (1-C) of section 3, a registered owner shall be entitled to a refund of tax at the rates specified in the Fourth Schedule, in case of--- "(a) removal of the motor cycle or tricycle to any other State on transfer of ownership or change of address; or (b) cancellation of registration of motor cycle or tricycle on account of scrapping of it due to accident or any other reason: Provided that, the refund or tax shall be granted by the Taxation Authority (i) in the case of removal of motor cycle or tricycle outside the State of Maharashtra on transfer of ownership or on change of address, only on production of sufficient proof of its registration outside the State of Maharashtra; and (ii) in the case of scrapping of motor cycle or tricycle, only on production of a certificate from the insurance company or any other sufficient documentary evidence that it is beyond repair and cannot be used again : Provided further that, where the rates of tax leviable under Part I of the Third Schedule are revised by notification in the Official Gazette issued under Clause (b) of subsection (1-C) of section (3), the State Government may, from time to time, by the notification or by a separate notification in the Official Gazette, correspondingly revise the rates of refund payable under this section and accordingly add suitable entries in respect of such rates of refund to the Fourth Schedule and thereupon the said schedule shall stand amended; and the refund of tax payable in respect of vehicles registered on or after the date of such notification shall be at such revised rates." The validity of the Amending Act and section 3(1)(b) (which is not amended) is impugned in these three petitions on the ground of absence of Legislative competence of the State Legislative, and violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 3. 3. We will first take up for consideration the challenge to the Amending Act on the ground that it is beyond legislative competence of the State Legislature. Substance of the contention is that imposition of levy which is known as road tax is permissible by the State under Entry 57 if its character is regulatory and compensatory and not otherwise. The impugned provisions are confiscatory and exproietory as a result their link with Entry 57 is snapped. In this connection our attention is invited to the scheme of new taxation in general and the absence of provision for refund even in case of genuine non-use in particular. For vehicles governed by one time tax, provisions of section 3(1-B)(2) and (3) do not apply. The question of enquiry or issuance of prescribed certificate about non-use does not arise whatever be the factual position. Provisions of refund contained in section 9(1) to (5) for the period of non-use do not apply to such vehicles. Refund is permissible in their cases only if (i) registration is cancelled on account of their scrapping due to accident or any other reason, and (ii) removal of vehicle to other State as specified. After some debate it is fairly not disputed before us that registration is cancelled at the volition of the owner there is nothing like re-registration and every fresh registration is treated for all purposes as first registration. Thus it is very plain that the Amending Act imposes road tax on a vehicle even when it does not use the public road. It seems to us that the contention of the petitioners has to be upheld and the levy declared as confiscatory in character and therefore beyond legislative competence of the State Legislature. 4. In this connection useful reference may be made to the law laid down by the Supreme Court on the point. The first important case on the point is (Bolani Ores v. State of Orissa)1, A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 17. It relates to Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. It is observed: "The validity of the taxing power under Entry 57, List II of the Seventh Schedule read with Article 301 of the Constitution depends upon the regulatory and compensatory nature of the taxes. It relates to Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. It is observed: "The validity of the taxing power under Entry 57, List II of the Seventh Schedule read with Article 301 of the Constitution depends upon the regulatory and compensatory nature of the taxes. It is not the purpose of the Taxation Act to levy taxes on vehicles which do not use the roads or in any way form part of the flow of traffic on the roads which is required to be regulated. The regulations under the Motor Vehicles Act for registration and prohibition of certain categories of vehicles being driven by persons who have no driving licence, even though those vehicles are not plying on the roads, are designed to ensure the safety of passengers and goods etc. etc. and for that purpose it is enacted to keep control and check on the vehicles. Legislative power Entry 35 of List III (Concurrent List) does not bar such a provision. But Entry 57 of List II is subject to the limitations referred to above, namely, that the power of taxation thereunder cannot exceed the compensatory nature which must have some nexus with the vehicles using the roads, viz. Public roads. If the vehicles do not use the roads, notwithstanding that they are registered under the Act they cannot be taxed. This very concept is embodied in the provisions of section 7 of the Taxation Act as also the relevant sections in the Taxation Act of other States, namely, that where a motor vehicle is not using the roads and it is declared that it will not use the roads for any quarter or quarters of a year or for any particular year or years, no tax is leviable there on and if any tax has been paid for any quarter during which it is not proposed to use the motor vehicle on the road, the tax for that quarter is refundable." The next decision is the case of (G.K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu and another)2, A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 583. It relates to Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Omnibus was taxed on the basis of the sitting capacity. The question arose whether taxation based on classification of capacity of contract carriage was valid. The answer was in the affirmative, the reason being that tax was compensatory and regulatory in character. It relates to Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Omnibus was taxed on the basis of the sitting capacity. The question arose whether taxation based on classification of capacity of contract carriage was valid. The answer was in the affirmative, the reason being that tax was compensatory and regulatory in character. The attack on the said Act on the ground that it violated Article 301 and was not saved by Article 304(b) of the Constitution was repealed. This is what the Supreme Court has to pay about the character of the compensatory tax : "Strictly speaking, a compensatory tax is based on the nature and the extent of the use made of the roads, as for example, a mileage or ton mileage charge or the like, and if the proceeds are devoted to the repair, upkeep, maintenance and depreciation of relevant roads and the collection of the exaction involves no substantial interference with the movement. The expression of 'reasonable compensation' is covenient but vague. The expression 'reasonable compensation' is convenient but vague. The standard of reasonableness can only be in the seventy with which it bears on traffic and such evidence of extravagance in its assessment as come from general considerations. What is essential for the purpose of securing freedom of movement by road is that no pecuniary burden should be placed upon it which goes beyond a proper recompense to the state for the actual use made of the physical facilities provided in the physical shape of a road. The difficulties are very great in defining this conception. But the conception appears to be based on a real division of a specific physical service of which particular use is made and a burden placed upon transportation in aid of the general expenditure of the State." The judgment proceeds to add : "......Although any method of taxation which has a direct bearing upon or connection with the use of the highways is apparently valid, a tax which has no such apparent bearing and is not shown to be compensatory but is rather a tax on the privilege of engaging in trade or commerce, is beyond the power of the State......" 5. Clear ratio of the aforesaid decisions is that no road tax can be levied merely for the privilege of owning a vehicle usable on road. Clear ratio of the aforesaid decisions is that no road tax can be levied merely for the privilege of owning a vehicle usable on road. To achieve twin object of imposing road tax on vehicles used or kept for use on public roads of the State and to avoid tax evasion, procedure is prescribed in the Act. Considering the large number of vehicles plying on the roads a legal presumption is drawn that a vehicle is deemed to use or kept for use except during a period for which Regional Transport Authority has certified in the prescribed manner that the vehicle has not been used or kept for use. Such provision safeguards the interest bona fide owner, for on the basis of certificate of non user for a period prescribed refund of the proportionate taxes can be obtained. It is not without significance that such provision has so far always been an integral part of every legislation imposing road tax. Mode of levy has also been so far on annual or quarterly basis and not on lump-sum basis. The length of period for which tax can be paid also indicates that an owner is not required to pay for more period than the period during which a vehicle is used. Liability to pay tax in advance for the whole life time of vehicle and not providing for refund for the period of non-use means nothing but levy merely for the privilege of owing or possessing a vehicle usable on road and thus it completely snaps its link from Entry 57. Such levy cannot be compensatory or regulatory. 6. In this connection useful reference may be made to the case of (M/s. G.D. Ankleshria Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh)5, decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court (M.P. 3125 of 1985, decided on 1-4-1987). The M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1985 by which one time tax was imposed on certain vehicles and no refund was provided for, has been struck down on the ground that such levy was confiscatory and therefore, beyond legislative competence of the State. It is held : "On the other hand, by the amended provision, an owner of a motor cycle is required to pay tax for ten years even if his motor cycle may not be used or be usable for that period. It is held : "On the other hand, by the amended provision, an owner of a motor cycle is required to pay tax for ten years even if his motor cycle may not be used or be usable for that period. This makes the tax confiscatory in regard to the period after the motor cycle has become unusable and also for the period during which it may not have been used there being no provision for its refund." We have our respectful concurrence to the above view. True it is that the M.P. Act did not have provision for refund even when the vehicle is scrapped but that makes no decisive difference. One of the elements viz. Absence of provision for refund for the period of non-use which weighed with the M.P. High Court in striking down that amending Act very much exists in the impugned Amending Act. 7. The learned Advocate General contended that making a provision for not levying road tax for the period of non-use is a matter of legislative policy and it has no nexus to Entry 57. It is difficult to accept this submission. Equally unacceptable is the submission that observations made by the Supreme Court in various decisions regarding regulatory and compensatory character of levy of road tax are only in the context of expressions used in the charging section. The use of the expression like "used or kept for use". In our view even on the basis of the said expression no other conclusion is possible. Almost similar expression is used in the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, which fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of (State of Mysore v. Sundaram Motors)4, A.I.R. 1980 Supreme Court 148. It is held that a motor vehicle merely passing through the State to a destination outside the State and stopping merely for rest and/ or refreshment in the course of transit does not attract levy of road tax. Sundaram has received approval in the case of (M/s. International Tourist Corporation v. State of Haryana)6, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 774. The later decision deals with various different shades of enactments made under Entry 57 as well as Entry 56. A common thread however, runs through them. It is road tax for being valid must be compensatory. 8. Now the submission about violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The later decision deals with various different shades of enactments made under Entry 57 as well as Entry 56. A common thread however, runs through them. It is road tax for being valid must be compensatory. 8. Now the submission about violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). Our attention is invited to difference in rates of taxes applicable to different varieties of vehicles, the mode of recovery and so also to the quantum of one time tax. As one of the fact is based on the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amending Act, we quote the same: "Section 3 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1957 provides for the levy of tax on all the motor vehicles at the rates to be notified by notification in the Official Gazette which shall not exceed the maximum rates specified in the First Schedule and shall be subject to other provisions of the Act. The tax rates were revised in respect of motor cars and transport vehicle in 1985. The tax rates on motor cycles and tricycles, however, have remained uncharged since 1982. 2. In recent years there has been a big spurt in the production and availability of motor cycles scooters and others types of two wheeled motor vehicles and the new registration of such vehicles is showing a higher upward trend as compared to other motor vehicles. The total number of such vehicles registered in the State as on the 1st January, 1987 is 10,36,2000 and this number increases at present at the rate of about 30 per cent every year. The collection of yearly tax from motor vehicles requires lot of manpower. The amount of tax which is being collected from motor cycles and other two wheeled motor vehicles and tricycles is disproportionate to the administrative cost. It is estimated that out of the total vehicles population in the State, approximately 56 per cent, are the motor cycles, other two wheeled motor cycles and tricycles. The tax collected from such vehicles is only 64 percent of the total tax collected under this Act. It is, therefore considered expedient to levy one time tax on motor cycles and tricycles at the time of registration for the whole life of such vehicles. The tax collected from such vehicles is only 64 percent of the total tax collected under this Act. It is, therefore considered expedient to levy one time tax on motor cycles and tricycles at the time of registration for the whole life of such vehicles. If such one time tax is levied and collected from the motor cycles and tricycles at the time of registration, it shall reduce considerably the tax collection work and shall also give the Government lumpsum revenue. The staff of the Motor Vehicles Department which devotes considerable amount of time in collection of tax from these vehicles can hereafter concentrate on other important work. This will also reduce the repeated visits of the owners of these vehicles to the Motor Vehicles Department offices every year. 3. It is proposed to levy the one time tax on all such vehicles registered hereafter. The vehicles which are already registered will be required to pay the tax at the time of renewal of their registration at the rates which are proportionately reduced according to the month of their first registration. The Bill also provides for a refund of tax if such vehicles are transferred to other States or if they are totally scrapped owing to accident or any other reason. Power is also taken to the State Government to amend the Schedule of rates of tax within the limit laid down in Part III of the Third Schedule and also the Schedule of rates of refund of tax. 4. The Bill Seeks to amend the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, to achieve the above mentioned objects." Rates given in the schedule will indicate that one time tax has been fixed at 15 times the old annual rate of tax for that variety of vehicle. One of the stated object of introducing the new system of taxation is to save administrative cost in the annual/quarterly collection and to reduce the repeated visits of the owners to the R.T.O. Office for depositing the tax. No change in the rates for other vehicles in effected. One of the stated object of introducing the new system of taxation is to save administrative cost in the annual/quarterly collection and to reduce the repeated visits of the owners to the R.T.O. Office for depositing the tax. No change in the rates for other vehicles in effected. Against this backdrop it is vehemently argued that in the name of saving administrative cost, tax has been in substance increased three times (in case allowance or discount for accelerated capitalisation and immediate collection is made) and that too only for vehicles used out of necessity by a common man on whom disproportionate burden of taxation is placed. It is argued that no consideration is shown to common man's incapacity to bear the tax burden and to pay the large amount in lump sum and further that the burden is also disproportionate to the cost of two wheeler or tricycle as compared to the cost of four wheeler-a vehicle of luxury. Material in the shape of comparison between the costs of various vehicles and the proportion they have to the levy; comparative figures of percentage of different varieties of vehicles table indicating as to how the tax rate is increased to three times in case interest discount factor in considered etc. is placed before us on behalf of the petitioners. State denies the all nations and has placed on record comparatables of income from different varieties of vehicles and expenditure required to be incurred and figures of increase on different varieties from time to time. Increase in taxation, policy of imposing one time tax only on two wheelers etc. all are sought to be justified on the basis of this material. 9. Now, it is true that a two wheeler particularly a moped is a vehicle of a common man and has become a vehicle of necessity for him particularly in an urban area upon which unending and uncontrollable pressure of population is mounting everyday. It is also true that as compared to the cost of the vehicle proportion of tax is too large, if interest discount factor is taken into consideration and that it is to difficult a matter for him to make arrangement for such a huge lump sum amount. To lay men like us it does appear on the first impressions that some consideration to the class of persons ought to have been shown in the tax structure. To lay men like us it does appear on the first impressions that some consideration to the class of persons ought to have been shown in the tax structure. But we must check the temptation of entering into thick forest of figures in which it is easy to enter but difficult to come out. All this is a matter of policy based on expert opinion and reliable and verifiable figures and host of several other considerations and factors which we are ill-equipped to balance. Rightly has the learned Advocate General brought to our notice several authorities laying down that enquiry into reasonableness of rate of tax, classification between objects of taxation etc. is normally beyond the pale judicial function. On whom does the burden of justifying the rates or classification lie, was also a matter of considerable debate before us but it is unnecessary to go into that academic question. All depends upon nature of legislation, nature of classification and facts of each case. Even if there is any doubt on these subjects, its benefit must go to the State. The State need not tax everything in order to tax something is a well recognised principle. It is for the State to decide how the tax burden should be distributed on varieties of tax payers. It will have to be always borne in mind that levy though compensatory in nature is not a fee. In this connection useful reference may made to the following observations made in the case of (Malwa Bus Service v. State of Punjab)6, A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court 634. "....A law of taxation cannot be termed as being discriminatory because different rates of taxation are prescribed in respect of different items, provided it is possible to hold that the said items belong to distinct and separate groups and that there is a reasonable nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved by the imposition of difference rates of taxation. The mere fact that a tax falls more heavily uncertain goods or persons may not result in its invalidity. As observed by this Court in (Khandige Sham Bhat v. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer)7, (1963)3 S.C.R. 809 in respect of taxation laws, the power of legislature to classify goods, things or persons are necessarily wide and flexible so as to enable it to adjust its system of taxation in all proper and reasonable ways. As observed by this Court in (Khandige Sham Bhat v. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer)7, (1963)3 S.C.R. 809 in respect of taxation laws, the power of legislature to classify goods, things or persons are necessarily wide and flexible so as to enable it to adjust its system of taxation in all proper and reasonable ways. The courts learn more readily in favour of upholding the constitutionality of a taxing law in view of the complexities involved in the social and economic life of the community. It is one of the duties of a modern legislature to utilise the measures of taxation introduced by it for the purpose of achieving maximum social good and one has to trust the wisdom of legislature in this regard. Unless the fiscal law in question is manifestly discriminatory the Court should refrain form striking it down on the ground of discrimination." Thus the attack based on Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) has to be repelled. 10. All that remains to be considered is the validity of sections 3(1)(b) of the Act providing for imposition of levy at thrice the rates on vehicles irrespective of their type-owned and/or processed by firms and companies. We do not see as to why that provision is discriminatory or arbitrary. We have already noticed as to how it is permissible for the State to distribute the tax burden on different class of persons on whose shoulders the burden has to be placed. Two varieties of owners commercial are distinct class. All that is required to be seen is whether there is any nexus between the classification and the purpose of the levy. Contention is that considering the nature of taxation it must depend upon the type of vehicle using the public road and not upon the person who owns it. The contention though appearing impressive in the first flush is illusory. State has given valid reason for this classification. It is to the effect that firms and companies are essentially commercial concerns and generally vehicle owned by them is used by more than one person ad that too more frequently. True it is that in a given case vehicle owned by other categories of owners may use the vehicle more than the one owned by firms and companies; but validity of classification has to be tested on generalities and not possible exceptions. True it is that in a given case vehicle owned by other categories of owners may use the vehicle more than the one owned by firms and companies; but validity of classification has to be tested on generalities and not possible exceptions. Thus classification has nexus to the use of the road and, therefore, valid. 11. To conclude, the petitions are partly allowed. The Amending Act is declared as invalid on the ground that it is beyond legislative competence of the State as per Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The respondents are restrained from recovering the one time tax on the basis of the Amending Act. Needless to mention that the State is duty bound to refund the one time tax to all those tax payers who have already paid. Rule absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 12. We are informed that several thousand of tax payers have not paid the tax due during this period even at the old rate firstly because taxes were being accepted by the R.T.O. and secondly because of uncertainty prevailing on account of pendency of these petitions and similar other petitions in Courts of law. Under the circumstances, were direct the respondents to accept without penalty taxes as per the unamended provision if paid within 15 days from today. 13. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is orally sought. Having regard to the nature of controversy we have directed filing of a written application. We also see no justification to grant prayer for staying the operation of this judgment in the whole background. Petitions allowed partly. -----