Natural justice in compulsory tax registration requires consideration of objections and reasons before registration, while show cause challenges are usually premature.

Compulsory dealer registration under section 12(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 cannot be sustained unless the authority considers the show cause reply and records reasons, because notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing are built into the provision as part of natural justice. The Gauhati HC found that reliance on an internal note, without dealing with the petitioner's objections or explaining why its activities were treated as a works contract, made the process an empty formality, so the registration was quashed and remitted for fresh consideration. The court also stated that a writ challenge to a show cause notice at the threshold should ordinarily not be entertained when the statutory authority can decide the objections first.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether compulsory registration of the petitioner as a dealer under section 12(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 could be sustained without dealing with the show cause reply and without recording reasons. (ii) Whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notice issued at the threshold of assessment ought to be entertained.

Issue (i): Whether compulsory registration of the petitioner as a dealer under section 12(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 could be sustained without dealing with the show cause reply and without recording reasons.

Analysis: The proviso to section 12(1) incorporates the requirement of notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing, making observance of natural justice an integral part of the power to compel registration. The impugned registration was founded only on an internal note which did not consider the petitioner's reply or the contention that its activities did not amount to works contract. The authority neither addressed the objections nor recorded reasons in the registration certificate, rendering the show cause process an empty formality.

Conclusion: The compulsory registration was unsustainable and was liable to be set aside and quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notice issued at the threshold of assessment ought to be entertained.

Analysis: A challenge to a show cause notice ordinarily should not be entertained when the statutory authority is competent to examine the objections and decide the issue in the first instance. The petitioner was at liberty to raise all grounds in reply to the notice, including the plea of lack of legal basis, and the competent authority was required to decide the matter by a speaking order after considering those objections. Judicial interference at that stage was found inappropriate.

Conclusion: The writ petition against the show cause notice was not to be entertained at that stage and the petitioner was directed to respond before the authority.

Final Conclusion: The compulsory registration was quashed and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration in accordance with law, while the challenge to the show cause notice itself was left to be pursued before the statutory authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory power of compulsory registration is conditioned by notice and hearing, the authority must consider the reply and record reasons before acting, and a writ court should normally not interdict a show cause notice when an efficacious statutory adjudication is available.

---