JUDGMENT Hon'ble CHAUDHARI, J.—These appeals have been filed by the appellants against a common judgment dated 26th July, 2004 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 1065/2003 - Stone "Crusher Association vs. State of Rajasthan and others and SBCWP No. 1066/2002- Rajasthan Half Body Truck Union and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others, hence, these are decided by common judgment. 2. The appellant-petitioners filed two writ petitions challenging validity of notification No. F4(1)FD/Tax/2001-pt-114 dated 27th September, 2002 and notification No. F4(1)FD/Tax/01-pt. 146 dated 15th January, 2003 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (herein after referred to as `the Act'), notifying the rate of tax on the basis of weight on casual commodities and also validity of notification No. F4(1)FD/Tax/2001-pt. 115 dated 27th September, 2002 and notification No. F. 4 (1)FD/Tax/01-Pt-147 dated 15th January, 2003, issued in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 15 of the Act, notifying the exemption fees per truck. 3. After hearing learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions by an elaborate order, against which these appeals have been filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that impugned notifications may be quashed as these notifications impose tax more than amount of tax liability under Sec. 4 of the Act and further submitted that the notification dated 27th September, 2002 does not provide for any tax on building stone, masonry stone, cheja stone and no tax is leviable on these items even then learned Single Judge has committed error in dismissing the writ petitions and further submitted that exemption fee has been notified by taking into consideration capacity of vehicles beyond normal registered capacity, which is arbitrary & unreasonable; hence, appeals may be accepted and order of learned Single Judge may be set aside and the aforesaid notifications may be quashed. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the notifications issued by the Government are in accordance with law and learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petitions, hence, present appeals may be dismissed. 5. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the notifications issued by the Government are in accordance with law and learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petitions, hence, present appeals may be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on commodities- stone grit, ballast and stone, more tax liability has been fastened under Sec. 9 in comparison to Sec. 4(1) of the Act, which could not have been fastened as per provisions of the Act. Sec. 4(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act reads as under:- "4. Levy of tax and its rate.- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956), the tax payable by a dealer under this Act, shall be at single point in the series of sales by successive dealers, as may be prescribed and shall be levied at such rates not exceeding fifty percent on the taxable turnover, as may be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette. (2) ...." 6. Taxable return has been defined in Sec. 2(42), which runs as under: "(42) "taxable turnover" means that part of turnover which remains after deducting therefrom the aggregate amount of the proceeds of sale of goods:- (i) on which no tax is leviable under this Act; (ii) which have been exempted from tax or which have suffered tax under this Act subject to other provisions in the Act; and (iii) which are taxable at a point of sale within the State subsequent to the sale by the dealer and such sale is covered by a declaration as may be required under any provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder." Section 9 of the Act runs as under: "9. Levy of tax by weight, volume or measurement on certain commodities (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3 and 4, the State Government may fix the amount of tax payable n the sale or purchase of certain commodities on the basis of weight, volume or measurement, as may be notified in the Official Gazette. (2) The amount of tax payable under sub-section (1) may be fixed with reference to the type of vehicles or carriers transporting the said commodities, and also with reference to the qualities thereof. (2) The amount of tax payable under sub-section (1) may be fixed with reference to the type of vehicles or carriers transporting the said commodities, and also with reference to the qualities thereof. (3) The amount of tax notified under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not exceed the amount of maximum tax liability provided in sub-section (1) of Section 4. 7. According to Sec. 9(3) of the Act, the amount of tax notified under Sec. 9(1) & (2) can not exceed the amount of tax liability provided under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 4 of the Act. According to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 4 of the Act, tax can be levied at such rate not exceeding 50% of the taxable turn over; meaning thereby up to 50% of taxable turn over tax can be imposed by the State Government. Learned counsel for the appellants could not show that tax more than 50% of the taxable turn over has been levied under the challenged notification under Sec. 9of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards paras 4, 5, and 6 of the appeal, in which it has been mentioned that in additional affidavit submitted by the respondents before the learned Single Judge, price per ton on these items and calculated tax has shown. A perusal of the additional affidavit and these paras reveals that sale price of stone grit, blast and stone has been shown respectively as Rs. 100-112.50, Rs. 75 and Rs. 30 and under Sec. 9 of the Act, tax has been levied at the rate of Rs. 20/-, Rs. 12.50/- and Rs. 12 respectively. Thus, it becomes clear that imposed tax under Sec. 9 is not in excess of 50% of the taxable turn over. 9. Merely because maximum amount of tax liability under Sec. 4(1) at the rate of 12% falls below the tax liability imposed under Sec. 9, it can not be said that the notification issued under Sec. 9 is ultra vires to Sec. 4(1) of the Act, when it is not in excess of 50% of taxable turnover. 10. As far sale price of Moram is concerned, in para 6 of the appeal sale price per ton has been shown as Rs. 6/-. Thus sale price has not been shown in the additional affidavit and in such circumstances, tax liability to the tune of Rs. 10. As far sale price of Moram is concerned, in para 6 of the appeal sale price per ton has been shown as Rs. 6/-. Thus sale price has not been shown in the additional affidavit and in such circumstances, tax liability to the tune of Rs. 8/- per ton imposed under Sec. 9 can not be held to be ultra vires to sec. 4(1) of the Act. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that notifications do not provide for rate of tax or exemptions fees on building stone, masonry stone, cheja stone and so the State Government is not entitled to collect tax or exemption fee on these commodities. This argument is devoid of force because in the notification dated 22nd March,2002, serial No. 136, runs as under: "136. Building material except marble, granite and cement; building stones, bricks and lime;" 12. Apparently, building stone includes every type of building stones including stone grit & ballast, which are made of building stone. Thus, notifying tax or exemption fee on these items is not contrary to notification dated 22nd March, 2002. 13. As far notifications under Sec. 15 are concerned, they may be in contravention to provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but there is separate machinery to enforce provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and lawful action can be taken in case of violation of those provisions but on that count, notifications issued under Sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act can not be held to be ultra vires to the provisions of Sec. 4(1)of the Act. Section 15 of the Act runs as under: "15. Exemption of tax.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, it may, be notification in the Official Gazette, exempt full or partially, whether prospectively or retrospectively, from tax the sale or purchase of any goods or class of goods or any person or class of persons, without any condition or with such conditions as may be specified in the notification." 14. It is sweet-will of a person to take benefit of exemption under Sec. 15 of the Act and if he chooses to take benefit of exemption, he is supposed to pay exemption fee per truck, as notified in the notifications issued u/Sec. 15 of the Act. It is sweet-will of a person to take benefit of exemption under Sec. 15 of the Act and if he chooses to take benefit of exemption, he is supposed to pay exemption fee per truck, as notified in the notifications issued u/Sec. 15 of the Act. Merely because exemption fee is higher in value in comparison to liability of tax for transporting goods as per registered capacity of the truck, the notifications issued under Sec. 15 of the Act can not be said to be ultra vires. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon judgments delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Saran Ganga Saran vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax & Ors. (1985 (60) STC 01), Maharaja of Pithapu-ram vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras (AIR 1945 PC 89), Chatturam Horiliram Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar 7 Orissa (AIR 1955 SC 61), Commissioner of Salex Tax, U.P. vs. Agra Belting Works (2001 (121) STC 396), Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Trade-tax,UP ( 1998 (108) STC 399 ) and Sri Kamla Dal Mills vs. State of U.P. & another (1996 (28) STC 204). Learned Single Judge has rightly observed that these judgments are not applicable to the present controversy. These judgments do not help the appellants at all as these citations do not deal with the present controversy. 16. In the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that notifications issued under Secs. 9 & 15of the Act are not in contravention to Sec. 4(1) of the Act and learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions filed by appellants. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed.