JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, C.J.I. :—These are applications under Art. 32 of the Constitution on behalf of petitioners who hold All India Tourist Permits granted under S. 63(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 corresponding to S. 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The respondent-States in these writ petitions are Haryana, Punjab, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. There is a common Act the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924 - which is applicable to the States of Punjab and Haryana. In each of the other States there is a similar separate legislation. Under the taxing power in the several Acts provision has been made for taxation as also for levy of additional tax. It is the contention of the petitioners that the demand of additional tax is neither compensatory nor regulatory and, therefore, the levy is violative of Art. 19(1)(g) read with Art. 301 of the Constitution. In regard to the, States of Punjab and Haryana a special contention has been raised to the effect that R. 8(v) of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1925 provides total exemption from liability of tax if the vehicle is brought into Punjab and kept for use within the State for a period not exceeding 30 days in a year and it is the contention of the petitioners that since the vehicles registered outside the States of Punjab and Haryana are not kept within the State for more than 30 days a year, the demand of tax in the face of R. 8(v) is contrary to law.

2. In the State of Gujarat, the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 has been amended. S. "A of the Amending Act provides that:

"3A(1) On and from the first day of April, 1982 there shall be levied and collected, on all omnibuses which are exclusively used or kept for use in the State as contract carriages (hereinafter in this section referred to as the omnibus) a tax (hereinafter referred to as "the additional tax") in addition to the tax levied under S. 3, at the rates fixed by the State Government by notification in the official Gazette but not exceeding the maximum rates specified in the table below:-

Description of an omnibus Maximum rate of additional tax.

A. Ordinary omnibuses (i) Monthly rate of Rs. 240 per passenger permitted to be carried

(ii) Weekly rate of Rs. 80 per passenger permitted to be carried.

(iii) Daily rate of Rs. 16 per passenger permitted to be carried.

B. Luxury or tourist omnibuses (1) Monthly rate of Rs. 360 per passenger permitted to be carried

(ii) Weekly rate of Rs. 120/- per passenger permitted to be carried.

(iii) Daily rate of Rs.24/- per passenger permitted to be carried......"

3. The validity of levy of this type came up for consideration before this Court in the case of the Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (1963) 1 SCR 491. Four learned Judges who constituted the majority held that the provisions of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 did not violate the provisions of Art. 301 of the Constitution and the taxes imposed under the Act were compensatory or regulatory in nature which did not hinder the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse assured by that Article. At page 536 (of SCR of the Report the following test was indicated:

"It seems to us that a working test for deciding whether a tax is compensatory or not is to inquire whether the trades people are having the use of certain facilities for the better conduct of their business and paying not patently much more than what is required for providing the facilities. It would be impossible to judge the compensatory nature of a tax by a meticulous test, and in the nature of things that cannot be done."

4. The same question came up for consideration before a Two-Judge Bench in International Tourist Corporation v. State of Haryana (1981) 2 SCC 318. This Court followed the decision referred to above of the larger group and observed:

"There cannot be the slightest doubt that the State of Haryana incurs considerable expenditure for the maintenance of roads and providing facilities for th