Compulsory registration under sales tax law depends on statutory liability, not merely on whether tax is payable on each sale.

Retail medicine dealers remained within the compulsory registration regime under the Assam General Sales Tax Act because registration depended on liability within the statutory taxing scheme, not on whether tax was actually payable on every sale. The distinction between goods taxed only at the first stage and complete non-liability to tax was material, so limited incidence of tax did not remove the underlying obligation to register. The assessing officer could also require registration after notice and hearing under the Act, since the powers to enforce registration and the obligation to pay tax were distinct. Exemption from further levy on medicines therefore did not by itself exempt dealers from compulsory registration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether retail medicine dealers were liable to be registered as dealers under section 11 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, even though medicines were taxed at the first sale and no further tax was payable on subsequent sales. (ii) Whether the assessing officer could require such dealers to obtain registration under section 12(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993.

Issue (i): Whether retail medicine dealers were liable to be registered as dealers under section 11 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, even though medicines were taxed at the first sale and no further tax was payable on subsequent sales.

Analysis: Section 11 made registration obligatory for every dealer liable to pay tax. The scheme of sections 7(2) and 8(3)(ii) showed that even where medicines were taxed only at the first stage, the dealer's turnover and liability could still be relevant for statutory registration. The distinction between exemption or exclusion from further taxation and complete non-liability to tax was material. The fact that a dealer may not actually pay tax on a particular sale did not erase the underlying statutory liability framework for registration.

Conclusion: The retail medicine dealers were still liable to registration under section 11, and the challenge to the registration requirement failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessing officer could require such dealers to obtain registration under section 12(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993.

Analysis: Section 12(1) empowered the assessing officer, after notice and opportunity of hearing, to require a dealer whom he considered liable to registration to apply and to register him. This power operated independently of the question whether the dealer ultimately paid tax on particular sales. The statutory obligation to register and the obligation to pay tax were distinct, and the Act permitted the assessing officer to enforce registration where warranted.

Conclusion: The assessing officer had the power to require registration, and the prayer for cancellation of the registrations was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were without merit because dealers of medicines remained subject to the statutory registration regime despite the limited incidence of tax on their sales.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the sales tax statute, registration depends on liability within the taxing scheme and is distinct from actual tax payment; exemption from further levy on goods does not by itself exempt a dealer from compulsory registration.

---