D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ). THIS is a petition by the owners of cranes individually and through their Association. The petitioners call in question certain provisions of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 as amended from to time to time and particularly the amendment introduced to it by the Gujarat Act No. 13 of 1995 published in Gujarat Government Gazette Extra Ordinary dated 31-7-1995 and the notification issued thereunder published in Gujarat Govrnment Gazette Extra Ordinary dated 31-7-1995 whereby tax at increased rates have been imposed on mobile cranes mounted on motor vehicles. ( 2 ) BOMBAY Motor Vehicles Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1958") by its charging Sec. 3 empowers the State Government to impose the tax on motor vehicles by notification in the Official Gazette but at a rate not exceeding the maximum rates specified in its Schedule appended to the Act. The Schedules appended to the Act were amended from time to time to specify the maximum rates of tax which could be levied on different types of motor vehicles including cranes. By impugned part of Gujarat Amendment Act No. 13 of 1995, the 1st Schedule to the Act of 1958, particularly, clause VI was amended to insert the additional entry (f), sub-entries (i) and (ii) for prescribing the maximum rate of tax imposable on cranes. ( 3 ) THE relevant entry (f) in clause VI in the 1st Schedule in Part I of Act of 1958 containing the maximum rates of tax imposable on cranes which is under challenge in this petition needs to be quoted as under :-1st Scheduleclause VI entry (f) Motor Vehicles other than those liable to tax under the foregoing provisions of the Schedule -a. b. c. d. e. f. (i) Tractors which are not fitted Rs. 1500/- + Rs. 200/- for entry with any equipments such as additional 250 kgs. or part in weight rigs, cranes, compressors or exceedings 2250 kgs. projectors. (ii) Any motor vehicle exceeding Rs. 1500/- + Rs. 200/- for entry 2200 kgs in weight, unladen additional 250 kgs. or part in weight which are not intended to carry exceedings 2250 kgs. any passenger, goods or other load, and which are fitted in any equipment such as rigs, cranes, compressors or projectors and are used for any special services or purposes. 1500/- + Rs. 200/- for entry 2200 kgs in weight, unladen additional 250 kgs. or part in weight which are not intended to carry exceedings 2250 kgs. any passenger, goods or other load, and which are fitted in any equipment such as rigs, cranes, compressors or projectors and are used for any special services or purposes. " ( 4 ) IN accordance with Sec. 3, its 1st Schedule as amended above prescribes maximum imposable rate of tax on motor vehicles such as cranes. The impugned notification published in Gujarat Government Gazette Extra-ordinary dated 31-7-1995 prescribes the rates of tax, within the maximum permissible limit, on various kinds of motor vehicles including cranes. The relevant part of the said impugned notification concerning cranes reads as under :- iv. Motor Vehicles other than those liable to tax under the foregoing provisions of this Schedule - (i) Owned by an individual, a local authority, a public trust, a University, or an education or social welfare institution - (a) Vehicles exceeding 220 kg. in weight Rs. 540 unladen, in which the total number of seats (including that of the driver) and of the standing persons permitted to be carried in accordance with the Conditions of permit granted to the owner of the vehicle does not exceed twenty. (b) Vehicle exceeding 2250 kg. in weight, unladen, in which the total number of seats (including that of the driver) and of the standing persons permitted such to be carried in accordance with the conditions of permit granted to the owner of the vehicle does not exceeds twenty. (c) (i) Tractor whether or not fitted with any equipment such as rigs, cranes, compressors or projectors exceeding 2250 kgs. in wight, unladen and (ii) any motor vehicles exceeding 2250 kg. in weight, unladen which are not intended to carry any passenger, goods or other load, and which are fitted with equipment such as rigs, cranes, compressors or projector, and are used for any special services or purposes. Rs. 540 plus each number in excess of twenty. Rs. 540/- plus Rs. 100 for every additional 250 kg. or part thereof in excess of 2250 kg. (iii) Owned by a person other than Twice the rates specified an individual, a local authority, above. a public trust, a University or an educational or social welfare institution. Rs. 540 plus each number in excess of twenty. Rs. 540/- plus Rs. 100 for every additional 250 kg. or part thereof in excess of 2250 kg. (iii) Owned by a person other than Twice the rates specified an individual, a local authority, above. a public trust, a University or an educational or social welfare institution. Additional tax payable in respect of Motor Vehicles used for drawing trailers : (i) for each trailer when the trailer is The rates specified in clause used for the carriage of goods, in respect of Motor Vehicles used for the carriage of goods or materials. (ii) for each trailer when the trailer is The rates specified in clause used for the carriage of passengers in respect of motor vehicles the for each trailer when the trailer plying for hire and used for is used for any other purpose, the carriage of passengers. Rs. 50. Provided that two or more vehicles shall not be chargeable under this clause in respect of same trailer. VI. Motor Vehicles falling under clause II Twice the rates specified in or clause IV manufactured out of clause II or as the case india and imported into India after may be clause IV. the 31st March, 1957. Explanation - I. For the purpose of Clause IV, - (1) "educational institution" shall mean such educational institution as is recognised by the State Government by order notified in the Official Gazette in this behalf; (2) "local authority" shall mean any Municipal Corporation, Municipality, cantonment Board or Panchayat constituted under any law for the time- being in force in the State of Gujarat; (3) "public trust" shall mean a public trust registered under the Bombay Public trust Act, 1950 as in force in the State of Gujarat; (4) "social Welfare Institution" shall mean any institution engaged in any activity conductive to the welfare of the general public and recognised by the State government by order notified in the Official Gazette for the purpose of those cause; (5) "university" shall mean a university established by or under any law for the time-being in force in the State of Gujarat. Explanation - II. If a motor vehicle is jointly owned by more person than one, then notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec. Explanation - II. If a motor vehicle is jointly owned by more person than one, then notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 41 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, such Motor Vehicles shall for purposes of clause IV, be deemed to be owned by a person other than an individual. " ( 5 ) THE leading arguments were advanced by Shri H. M. Mehta, Senior counsel on behalf of the crane owners and they were supported by the arguments advanced by Shri Pranav G. Desai. ( 6 ) THE principal submissions made on behalf of the petitioner is that mobile cranes mounted on motor vehicles may be covered by the definition of the motor vehicles under the Act of 1958 read with definition clause 28 in Sec. 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but as the mounted mobile cranes are principally meant for use at certain sites and only incidentally used on roads for transport of cranes, they cannot be subjected to tax on such incidental user under Sec. 3 of the Act of 1958. Very heavy reliance is placed on the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1975 SC 17 and in the case of Goody ear India Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in AIR 1997 SC 2038 . ( 7 ) ON the question of taxability of mobile mounted cranes, Shri S. N. Shelat, additional Advocate General in his reply brought to the notice of this Court a series of decisions of the Supreme Court emanating from several motor vehicle taxation laws of different States. His submission is that cranes which may be incidently used on roads can be subjected to tax and the question of its taxability is conclusively answered by the Supreme Court against the crane owners. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court on Punjab Motor vehicle Taxation Act in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Chowgule and co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 1992 SC 1376 and in the case of Regional transport Officer-Cum-Taxing Authority, Rourkela and Ors. v. Steel Authority of india Ltd. , reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 165. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the High Court in the case of M/s. Ishwardas and Co. and Ors. v. Chowgule and co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 1992 SC 1376 and in the case of Regional transport Officer-Cum-Taxing Authority, Rourkela and Ors. v. Steel Authority of india Ltd. , reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 165. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the High Court in the case of M/s. Ishwardas and Co. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. , reported in AIR 1986 Bom. 348 and in the case of Poomani v. Tuticorin Thermal Power Project, reported in AIR 1990 mad. 372 . Learned Additional Advocate General tried to distinguish the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Bolani Ores (supra) and Good-year india Ltd. (supra ). ( 8 ) TO consider the challenge made by the crane owners to the taxability of mobile mounted cranes, a few provisions of the Act of 1958 as amended and the rules framed thereunder, in the light of the decisions of the Supreme court and High Courts cited at the Bar are required to be considered. ( 9 ) BOMBAY Motor Vehicles Tax Act of 1985 as adapted and modified by the Gujarat Adaption of Laws Act, 1970 and as amended from time to time, as its preamble declares is a law relating to the taxation of motor vehicles. the words "motor vehicle" has not been separately defined in the Act of 1958 but sub-sec. 10 of Sec. 2 of the said Act provides that "other words and expressions used, but not defined in this Act shall have a meaning respectively assigned to them in the Motor Vehicles Act of 1937, by Gujarat Act No. 10 of 1991. Sub-sec. 10 of the Act of 1958 is amended to substitute for words and figures "the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, " "motor Vehicles Act of 1988. Sub-sec. 10 of the Act of 1958 is amended to substitute for words and figures "the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, " "motor Vehicles Act of 1988. " under Sec. 2 (28) of Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 the motor vehicle is defined as under :- section 2 (28) : "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding 25 cubic centimetres". The charging Secs. 3 (1) and (2) of the Act of 1958 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 rates fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, (but not exceeding the maximum rates specified in the First, Second and Third Schedules) : (Provided that in case of any motor vehicles (irrespective of whether they are specified (in Sec. 3a or the First Schedule) or the Second Schedule) kept by a dealer in, or manufacturer of such vehicles, for the purpose of trade, there shall be levied and collected annually such amount of tax not exceeding rs. 250/- as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify on those motor vehicles only which are permitted to be used on the roads in the manner prescribed by rules made under (the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) : provided further that, if the State Government, because of disparity in the rates of tax prevailing in certain area of the State immediately before the commencement of this Act or for any other reason, is of opinion, that the levy and collection of tax on motor vehicles immediatley at a uniform rate throughout the State, is likely to cause undue hardship to owners or persons having possession or control of such vehicles in those area, or to affect adversely trade and commerce or the development of motor transport and other industries in such area, the State Government may levy and collect the tax on motor vehicles, or any class thereof at different rates in those areas, so however that by increase or decrease of the rate, of tax annually in those area, within a period of three years, a unifrom rate of tax is levied throughout the State. 3. (2 ). Except during any period for which the Taxation Authority has, in the prescribed manner, certified that a motor vehicle was not used or kept for use in the State, the registered owner, or any person having possession or control, of a motor vehicle of which the certificate of registration is current, shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to use or keep such vehicle for use in the state. "what is to be noted that by charging Sec. 3 (1) the taxes are leviable and recoverable on all motor vehicles actually put to use or kept for use within the State. ( 10 ) SECTION 3 (2) makes it clear that a motor vehicle neither used nor kept for use in the State is not liable to pay tax if for the period in question it has obtained a certificate from the Taxation Authority that it was not so used and not kept for use in the State. ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners does not dispute the legal position that mobile cranes mounted on motor vehicles are included in the definition of motor vehicle under Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988. ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners does not dispute the legal position that mobile cranes mounted on motor vehicles are included in the definition of motor vehicle under Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988. The said definition has been borrowed for the purpose of the Act of 1958. ( 12 ) THE contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the cranes even mounted on motor vehicles to make it mobile are principally and mostly used at different work sites or construction sites and they are sometimes incidentally used on public roads only to carry the cranes from one site to another. It is therefore contended that the cranes are not used or kept for use in the State within the meaning of that expression under Sec. 3 (1) of the Act of 1958, and therefore, no tax can be levied on the same. ( 13 ) THE other submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that most of the cranes which are used exclusively in enclosed premises of a factory or a work site and not at all used on public roads are also subjected to tax and to that extent the provisions of Sec. 3 (1) fall outside entry No. 57 of List ii of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution. The State Legislature, therefore in specifying in the Schedule to the Act of 1958, maximum rates of tax on all cranes irrespective of its use on public roads has acted beyond its legislative competence under Entry No. 57 of List II of VIIth Schedule. Entry No. 57 of List II of VIIth Schedule reads as under :-"taxes on Vehicles, whether mechanically propelled or not, suitable for use on roads including trams, cars subject to the provisions of Entry No. 35 of List III. "entry No. 35 of List III of the concurrent list empowers the State or the central Legislature to make law for laying down general principles on which tax can be imposed on mechanically propelled vehicles. Entry No. 35 of List iii reads as under :-"mechanically propelled vehicles including the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied. "entry No. 35 of List III of the concurrent list empowers the State or the central Legislature to make law for laying down general principles on which tax can be imposed on mechanically propelled vehicles. Entry No. 35 of List iii reads as under :-"mechanically propelled vehicles including the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied. " ( 14 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, very heavy reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bolani Ores (supra) and Goodyear india Ltd. (supra ). So far as the taxability of mobile mounted cranes included in the definition of motor vehicles, is concerned this Court finds that the point is concluded against the petitioners by the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Travancore Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors. , reported in AIR 1980 SC 1547 and many later decisions of the Supreme Court to which we shall make a reference in the following paragraphs of this judgment, ( 15 ) IN the case of Travancore Tea Co. Ltd. (supra), the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Bolani Ores (supra) was considered in detail. The Bolani ores case was distinguished on definition clause of Motor Vehicles contained in Sec. 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938, as it existed then, prior to its amendment in the year 1956. In the case of Bolani Ores (supra), the question raised was regarding taxability of motor vehicles, i. e. , dumpers, tractors, caterpillar, trax cavetror and caterpillar bulldozers, scrapers and shovels etc. which are all used in the premises of a mine. In the definition of motor vehicle contained in Sec. 2 (28) as it stood at the relevant time, prior to its amendment by the Act of 1956, vehicles used solely upon the premises of the owner were excluded from the definition of motor vehicle. It is only after the amendment of definition clause in Sec. 2 (18) by the Act No. 100 of 1956 that only vehicles of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises were excluded from the definition of motor vehicle. The Bihar, Orissa and Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Acts in their provisions have incorporated the definition of motor vehicles contained in the Motor Vehicles Act of 1938. The Bihar, Orissa and Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Acts in their provisions have incorporated the definition of motor vehicles contained in the Motor Vehicles Act of 1938. The legal question of interpretation that arose before the Supreme Court in the case of Bolani Ores (supra) was whether definition of motor vehicle contained in amended definition of Sec. 2 (28) would be applicable to demand tax on vehicles involved under the Motor Vehicle Taxation Acts of 3 different States. The second question arose was whether it is an instance of legislation by reference or incorporation. In Bolani Ores case after discussing the provisions and interpreting them, conclusion was arrived at that the taxing provisions had to be interpreted in the light of Entry No. 57 in List II of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution. Motor Vehicle Tax is imposable on motor vehicles to be used on roads or intended to be used on roads. It was held that the State Legislature would be deemed to have incorporated in their taxing provision the definition of motor vehicle as contained in Sec. 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act as it stood prior to the amendment introduced to the definition clause by the Act of 100 of 1992. Thus, construing the provisions of the Acts of the State Legislature, it was held that vehicles used in the mining premises fall outside the definition of motor vehicle and could not be subjected to tax. ( 16 ) THIS distinction was duly noted by the Supreme Court in the case of travancore Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) where also the question that arose was regarding taxability of motor vehicles used within the Tea Estate of the owner. In travancore Tea Co. Ltd. case (supra), the Supreme Court declined to rely on the decision of Bolani Ores (supra) by bringing out the distinction discussed above. It was held that as the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963 refers and incorporates in its provisions the amended definition of motor vehicle contained in Sec. 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as introduced by Act No. 100 of 1956, vehicles which though used in enclosed premises of the Tea Estate are exigible to tax because they are covered by the definition clause in Sec. 2 (28) of the Act, 1939 as amended in the year 1956. Those were vehicles not being of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or any other enclosed premises. They were held to be not exempt from tax as such vehicles are not excluded from the definition of motor Vehicle. In Travancore Tea Co. case (supra), the vehicles owned by the owner were tractors, trailers, lorries etc. which were used in the Tea Estate, but were held to be motor vehicles not of a special type adapted for use exclusively in a factory or enclosed premises. ( 17 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the decision of the Supreme Court in Bolani Ores (supra) which was based on the unamended definition of Sec. 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (as existing then), is no assistance to the petitioners in the cases in hand based on the provisions of the Bombay Act as applicable to the State of Gujarat. ( 18 ) AS has been stated above, Sec. 2 (10) as amended by the Gujarat Act no. 10 of 1991 adopts the definition of Motor Vehicle contained in the New motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Under the New Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 by Section 2 (28) vehicles adapted for use on roads and not of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than 4 wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding 25 cubic cms are all included in the definition of motor vehicles. ( 19 ) IT cannot be disputed from the common knowledge and explained from various technical dictionaries and diagrams placed before us that "mobile crane mounted on motor vehicle is so manufactured and designed as to become a vehicle "adapted for use on roads". It is also not disputed that mounted cranes are principally used at work sites or in enclosed premises for lifting or moving goods of heavy weights and loading and unloading. Mounted crane on a motor vehicle is capable of being used on the roads as it is required to be sometimes taken from one work site to another. It is a motor vehicle adapted for use upon roads - may be that it is not frequently or regularly used on roads. Mounted crane on a motor vehicle is capable of being used on the roads as it is required to be sometimes taken from one work site to another. It is a motor vehicle adapted for use upon roads - may be that it is not frequently or regularly used on roads. This court also cannot accept the proposition that mounted crane is a vehicle of special type adapted for use only in factories or in any other enclosed premises. A mobile mounted crane is capable of being, used on roads for its transportation. It is, therefore, not a vehicle of a special type for exclusive use inside the factory or enclosed premises. Its exigibility to tax, therefore as a motor vehicle cannot be questioned and the point is squarely answered against the crane owners in the case of Travancore Tea Co. Ltd. (supra ). ( 20 ) VERY strong reliance has been placed on the decision of Goody ear India ltd. (supra) on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the same being the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court is binding on this Court in preference to all other earlier decisions of the Supreme Court with which we shall briefly deal in the following paragraphs. . ( 21 ) GOOD-YEAR India Ltd. case (supra) was not a case arising from any motor vehicle taxation law. It was the case on the question of payment of excise duty under Central Excise Law on tyres. There excisable item No. 16 with its several sub-items in the Central Excise Tariff, as compared to item No. 34 on a motor vehicle, came up for consideration and construction. Tyres of motor vehicles mentioned in item No. 16 were subjected to excise duty at the rate of 60% ad valorem while all other tyres not for motor vehicles were leviable to duty at the rate of 20% advalorem. The direct question that arose before the Supreme court was whether tyres of Dumpers and Earth-rollers were subjected to excise duty as "tyres for motor vehicles" under item No. 16 sub item No. 1 at 60% ad valorem or they are taxable, as claimed by the manufacturer, under sub- item No. 3 of item No. 16 as other tyres at the rate of 20% ad valorem. It is on this question that item No. 34 of the tariff which contains the description and definition of motor vehicle for the purpose of excise duty, came up for consideration. What is to be noticed is the striking difference between the definition of motor vehicle in item No. 34 with the explanation thereunder and the definition of motor vehicle contained in Sec. 2 (28) of Motor Vehicles act, 1988, as the latter alone is relevant for the purposes of these cases. The two definitions contained in excise law in item No. 34 and in Act of 1988 are hereby reproduced in juxtaposition for highlighting the differences between the two :- ( 41 ) THE last argument advanced is that the burden of tax is so heavy that it is exproprietory and confiscatory in nature. Such heavy imposition of tax on mobile cranes at double the rates on vehicles used by legal persons other than individuals and at still higher rate on cranes manufactured outside India is such as to amount to serious inroads on the fundamental rights of the citizens to carry on trade and profession guaranteed under Art. 19 (l) (g) of the constitution. To support the above argument along with the petition and rejoinder which are submitted on affidavit, a comparative chart has been filed to show that rate of tax imposed in the State of Gujarat is highest. Comparing thus the quantum of tax in States such as Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, union Territories, Maharashtra and Rajasthan, it is pointed out that in no other state except Gujarat, tax at such heavy rate on mobile cranes with periodical increase based on laden weight and double the rate on cranes owned by legal persons other than individuals and 4 times on foreign manufactured cranes, has been levied. It is submitted that the tax burden is so unbearable that trade in cranes is no longer a economically viable business. ( 42 ) THE provisions which entitle refund of tax for non-user of vehicles on roads have been dealt with in detail by Division Bench of this Court in kaushikbhai K. Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , reported in 1998 (2) GLR 1093 although it was so done in a different context. ( 42 ) THE provisions which entitle refund of tax for non-user of vehicles on roads have been dealt with in detail by Division Bench of this Court in kaushikbhai K. Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , reported in 1998 (2) GLR 1093 although it was so done in a different context. The existing provisions do show that cranes which are actually at the work site and not intended to be used on roads can avail the provisions for claiming refund of tax for non- user. ( 43 ) WE have considered the above submissions and have also gone through the comparative figures of State-wise tax burdens, placed before us. It is true that tax burden on cranes in State of Gujarat is very high compared to other states. We. however, do not find that the figures in tabular form placed before us substantiate the stand that because of the heavy tax burden, the crane owners are likely to be thrown out of the trade or that the business in cranes has been rendered impossible or extremely unprofitable. Such a challenge to tax burden was not accepted in the case of Malwa Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. (supra), although certain observations were made in favour of tax payers. Similar observations can be made in this batch of petitions as well. It is open to the petitioners to approach the State Government with the facts and comparative figures to persuade the Government or the legislature to reduce the tax burden or atleast to bring it at par with tax burden on mobile cranes as is to be found in other States. 43a. The contention that the heavy burden of tax is confiscatory, exproprietory or is deprivation of fundamental right of trade under Art. 19 (l) (g) has to be rejected on the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Malwa Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. (supra) at Page 642 :-"22. It was lastly urged that the levy is almost confiscatory in character and the petitioners would have to close down their business as stage carriage operators. It was lastly urged that the levy is almost confiscatory in character and the petitioners would have to close down their business as stage carriage operators. It is stated that the passenger fares were permitted to be raised by about 43 percent just before the levy was increased in this case and it is even now open to the operators to move the State Government to increase the rates if they feel that there is a case for doing so. But on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we feel that it is not possible to hold that the impugned evy imposes an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of the petitioners to carry on business. The considerations similar to those which weighed with this court in upholding the Mustard Oil Price Control Order, 1977, in Prag Ice and Oil Mills V. Union of India. 1978 (3) SCR 293 : AIR 1978 SC 1296 , ought to be applied in this case also. Though patent injustice to the operators of stage carriages in fixing lower returns on the tickets issued to passengers should not be encouraged, a reasonable return on investment or a reasonable rate of profits cannot be the sine qua non of the validity of the order of me Government fixing the maximum fares which the operators may collect from the passengers. it cannot also be said that merely because a business becomes uneconomical as a consequence of a new levy, the new levy would amount to an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on the said business. It is. however, open to the State Government to make any modifications in the fares if it feels that there is a need to do so. But the impugned levy cannot be struck down on the ground that the operation of stage carriages has become uneconomical after the introduction of the impugned levy. Moreover, the material placed by the petitioners is not also sufficient to decide whether the business has really become uneconomical or not. We do not, therefore, find any merit in this ground also. " (Italics to supply emphasis) ( 44 ) FOR the detailed discussion as above of various points urged before us, the challenge to the provisions of the Act of 1958 and the notifications issued thereunder fixing different rates of tax on mobile cranes fails. All the petitions are dismissed. We do not, therefore, find any merit in this ground also. " (Italics to supply emphasis) ( 44 ) FOR the detailed discussion as above of various points urged before us, the challenge to the provisions of the Act of 1958 and the notifications issued thereunder fixing different rates of tax on mobile cranes fails. All the petitions are dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier in each petition is hereby vacated. In the circumstances, there shall be no orders as to costs. Rule discharged. As per the conditions imposed in the interim orders of stay and the undertakings given by the petitioners, they are directed to clear the different amounts of tax dues against them in respect of their different types of vehicles within a period of three months. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners prays that interim relief granted be extended for a reasonable period of time to enable the petitioners to approach the Honble Supreme Court. Since this is a matter regarding payment of tax, we have relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in rejecting the petitions. We find no ground to grant any interim relief. Prayer rejected. .