JUDGMENT S. K. HOMCHAUDHURI, J. - In this batch of petitions a common question arises whether the notices asking the assessee to pay security and/or additional security without disclosing the reasons and grounds for demanding such amount as security is violative of the principles of natural justice and bad in law and consequently the orders passed on the basis of such notice are equally bad in law. These petitions are therefore disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In the Civil Rule Nos. 1230/93, 1254/93, 1275/93 and 1277/93, by the impugned notices each of the petitioners have been intimated that it has become expedient to demand from the petitioners the sum of money specified in the notice as additional security under section 7(3A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for proper realisation of the tax payable under the Act and proper custody and use of the forms referred to in sub-section (2A) of section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Petitioners were also given opportunity of being heard either in person or through authorised representative within 3 days from the date of receipt of the notice to show cause as to why the aforesaid amount should not be realised from them within 7 days from the date of receipt of the communication. 3. In Civil Rule Nos. 1231/93, 1274/93, 1294/93, 1295/93, 1296/93, 1297/93, 1298/93, 1299/93, 1300/93, 1301/93, 1302/93 and 1354/94 by the impugned notices each of the petitioners was intimated that it has become expedient so as to demand from them a sum of money specified in the notices as security under section 11-A of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, for proper realisation of the tax payable under this Act. The petitioners were further intimated that they were given opportunity of being heard in person or though authorised representative within 3 days from the date of receipt of the notices to show cause as to why the amount of security should not be realised from them within 7 days from the date of receipt of the communication. 4. I have heard Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Advocate-General, Assam, assisted by Mr. S. A. Laskar, Senior Government Advocate and Mr. D. P. Chaliha, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 5. Dr. 4. I have heard Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Advocate-General, Assam, assisted by Mr. S. A. Laskar, Senior Government Advocate and Mr. D. P. Chaliha, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 5. Dr. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, as well as the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, do not make it compulsory on the part of each assessee to furnish security/additional security for proper realisation of tax. In the instant cases all the petitioners have been paying their tax under the provisions of the relevant Act regularly. The competent authority has to apply its mind into the case of a particular assessee before arriving at the tentative view that the said assessee for the specific reason or reasons should furnish security/additional security, for proper realisation of the tax payable by him under the Act and/or for proper custody and use of the forms supplied to it referred to under sub-section (2A) of section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The notices therefore, must disclose reason and grounds for which the competent authority is prima facie satisfied that furnishing of security or additional security is necessary by the particular assessee. Unless the reasons and grounds are disclosed in the notice, it is not possible on the part of an assessee to show cause by making an effective representation to satisfy the competent authority that reasons and grounds on the basis of which the assessing authority is prima facie satisfied that furnishing of security/additional security is necessary for proper realisation of the tax payable under the Act, etc., are unfounded, and that he is not required to furnish the security. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-disclosure of the reasons and grounds in the notice is arbitrary and the assessee is thereby denied the reasonable opportunity to meet the allegation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all the impugned notices except repeating the language of the sections of the relevant Act, the notices do not contain any information of the material facts whatsoever on the basis of which the competent authority has been prima facie satisfied that for proper realisation of tax, furnishing of security/additional security was necessary. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in the following cases : (1) Braja Lal Banik v. State of Tripura reported in [1990] 78 STC 283 (Gauhati); (2) Govinda Misra v. Shri Jyotish Chandra Roy reported in (1990) 1 GLR 57; and (3) C. B. Gautam v. Union of India reported in (1993) 1 SCC 78 ; [1993] 199 ITR 530 (SC). Placing reliance on the above decisions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notices are no notice in the eye of law and are liable to be quashed and the orders passed in pursuance of the impugned notices are also equally illegal and inoperative and are liable to be quashed. 6. Learned Advocate-General on the other hand submits that it is not necessary to state reasons and ground in the notice itself. The assessee has got full opportunity to place his case before the competent authority that he is not required to pay security/additional security when he was heard in person by the authority and it is sufficient if the final orders passed in the proceeding disclose the reasons for which furnishing of security for proper realisation of the tax payable, etc., is necessary. Learned Advocate-General submits that although it is better to disclose the reasons and grounds in the notice, but non-disclosure of reasons and grounds for furnishing security or additional security in the show cause notice itself does not vitiate the notice and/or the proceedings. Learned Advocate-General, however, does not dispute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 or the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, and/or the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, it is not compulsory for each assessee to furnish security or additional security for proper realisation of tax, etc. According to the learned Advocate-General the decisions of this Court in Braja Law Banik [1990] 78 STC 283 and Govinda Misra (1990) 1 GLR 57 are confined to the facts and law involved in those cases and are not applicable on the facts of the present case. Learned Advocate-General further submits that the ratio decidendi in the case of C. B. Gautam, (1983) 1 SCC 78 has also no application on the facts of the present case. 7. Learned Advocate-General further submits that the ratio decidendi in the case of C. B. Gautam, (1983) 1 SCC 78 has also no application on the facts of the present case. 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as on behalf of the respondents. To appreciate the rival contentions it is appropriate to quote the relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, as regards furnishing of security/additional security by an assessee for proper realisation of tax payable under the provision of the Act. Sub-section (3A) of section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act provides that : "Section 7(3A) : Where it appears necessary to the authority granting a certificate of registration under this section so to do for the proper realisation of tax payable under this Act or for the proper custody and use of the forms referred to in sub-section (2A), he may, at any time while such certificate is in force, by an order in writing and for reasons to be recorded therein, require the dealer, to whom the certificate has been granted, to furnish within such time as may be specified in the order and in the prescribed manner such security, or, if the dealer has already furnished any security in pursuance of an order under this sub-section or sub-section (2A), such additional security, as may be specified in the order, for all or any of the aforesaid purposes." Section 11A of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, provides as follows : "11A. Payment of security by dealer. - (1) Where it appears necessary to the authority competent to register a dealer under section 9, 10 or 11 so to do for the proper realisation of tax payable under the Act, he may, at any time before or after registering the dealer, by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded therein, require the dealer to furnish within such time and in such form as may be specified in the order reasonable security for the aforesaid purpose; and on being so required the dealer shall accordingly furnish the security. ........" Section 7 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, provides as follows : "7. Certificate of registration. ........" Section 7 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, provides as follows : "7. Certificate of registration. - (1) A dealer registered under section 5 or section 6 shall be granted a certificate of registration in such form as may be prescribed, which shall specify the name or names of goods in which at the time of grant of the said certificates the dealer carries on business, and such other particulars as may be prescribed : Provided that the Commissioner may, for goods or sufficient reasons, demand from a dealer who has been registered or a person who has applied for registration under section 5, or a person who has been required to get himself registered under section 6, reasonable security for proper of tax. .........." 8. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of the relevant Acts, it is apparent that furnishing of security for proper realisation of tax payable under the Act is not compulsory. That being so, the competent authority is to apply its mind on the facts and circumstances of the case of a particular assessee to derive satisfaction that for proper realisation of the tax payable under the Act and/or for proper custody and use of the forms issued to the assessee under the provisions of the relevant Act furnishing of security is necessary. The competent authority must have materials before it for deriving satisfaction that furnishing of security or additional security is essential in case of a particular assessee. In other words, before asking an assessee to furnish security, the competent authority with regard to the conduct, financial condition and/or assets at disposal of the assessee, is to be prima facie satisfied that furnishing security or addition security by that assessee is necessary for proper realisation of the tax payable under the relevant Act and/or for proper custody and use of the forms referred to in sub-section (2A) of section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act. In the case of an assessee who pays tax regularly and/or has sufficient assets at its disposal to fall back upon to realise the tax payable under the Act, furnishing security for proper realisation of the tax under the Act, naturally is not required. In the case of an assessee who pays tax regularly and/or has sufficient assets at its disposal to fall back upon to realise the tax payable under the Act, furnishing security for proper realisation of the tax under the Act, naturally is not required. As such, an assessee has the right to know the reasons and grounds with material facts on the basis of which the competent authority is prima facie satisfied that he is required to furnish such security/additional security, so that the assessee may be able to show cause effectively to satisfy the competent authority that information and/or grounds for which he is satisfied that furnishing of security by the assessee is necessary, are incorrect and unfounded. Non-disclosure of reasons and grounds on basis of which the competent authority is satisfied that for proper realisation of the tax payable under the Act, etc., furnishing of security is necessary in the notice deprives the assessee of the reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations effectively. Disclosure of reasons and grounds subsequently in hearing stage and/or at the time of order cannot cure the deprivation of the reasonable opportunity to show cause effectively against notice to lay the foundation of defence by the assessee. 9. In para 9 of the decision in the case of Govinda Misra (1990) 1 GLR 57 a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows : "9. 'Notice' implies notice of all the relevant facts giving rise to the proposed action. If action has been initiated on an application filed by any third party, copy of such application must be supplied along with the notice. If some information has been received in pursuance of enquiry or otherwise, the result of such enquiry and other materials against the person concerned must be referred in the notice or made available to him, to enable him to make effective representation in the matter. It is only when all allegations on the basis of which any action is proposed to be taken are clearly and succinctly stated in the notice that the affected person can be expected to make a representation. If required, materials on which allegation is based, should also be supplied or made available to such person to enable him to understand property the case made out against him. It must be remembered that notice in such case is not a mere formality. If required, materials on which allegation is based, should also be supplied or made available to such person to enable him to understand property the case made out against him. It must be remembered that notice in such case is not a mere formality. It is given with a view to affording an opportunity to those against whom any action is proposed to be taken to contradict anything prejudicial to them. The affected person, therefore, must know the case which is made against him before he is called upon to have his say. He must know the statements made against him or any materials or evidence collected against him. It is only then it can be said that the affected person has been given fair opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action or contradicting the allegations made against him. Otherwise the opportunity of hearing will be a mere formality or farce." 10. In para 17 of the decision in the case of Braja Law Banik [1990] 78 STC 283, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows : "17. It is, therefore, clear that levy of penalty is a judicial act and must be performed in the manner indicated above. The order levying penalty must be a speaking order. It must contain reasons. This is so because the rule regarding reasons to be given in support of an order is like the principle of audi alteram partem and that rule must be observed in proper spirit. A mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. (See Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1976 SC 1785 ). In the instant case from the impugned notice and the order of penalty it is clear that none of the requirements indicated above was fulfilled. The notice did not contain any details whatsoever of the alleged charge under section 10(b) except repeating the language of the said clause. No such details were given even on being asked for. Even the order of penalty does not contain any of those informations. It simply mentioned the value of goods alleged to have been purchased on the basis of false representation made by the petitioner. It does not show that the authority concerned applied its mind to essential ingredients of section 10(b). Even the order of penalty does not contain any of those informations. It simply mentioned the value of goods alleged to have been purchased on the basis of false representation made by the petitioner. It does not show that the authority concerned applied its mind to essential ingredients of section 10(b). It also does not indicate as to show the quantum of penalty was fixed at Rs. 5,000. The impugned order of penalty, therefore, cannot be sustained." 11. On going through the aforesaid decisions I am unable to accept the contention of learned Advocate-General that the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has no application on the facts and circumstances of the case. In my opinion, the ratio decidendi in the cases of Govinda Misra (1990) 1 GLR 57 and Braja Lal Banik [1990] 78 STC 283 (Gauhati) has direct bearing on the question of law involved in these cases. As such, the notices demanding furnishing of security/additional security issued by the assessing authority under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and/or the Assam Sales Tax Act and/or Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act should disclose reasons and grounds with material facts on the basis of which the competent authority is prima facie satisfied that for proper realisation of the tax payable under the Central Sales Tax Act, or the Assam Sales Tax Act and/or the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act and for proper custody and use of the forms referred to under sub-section (2A) of section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, furnishing of security/additional security by the assessee has become necessary. 12. In the instant petitions none of the notices issued by the respondent No. 2 discloses the reasons and grounds for which he is satisfied that for the purpose of proper realisation of the tax payable under the Act, furnishing of security/additional security is necessary. Non-disclosure of the reasons and grounds with material facts in the notices having deprived reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to meet the allegation effectively, the proceedings are vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. 13. For the reasons stated above, the impugned notices issued by the respondent No. 2, the Superintendent of Taxes as well as the impugned orders passed on the basis thereof cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside and quashed. 14. 13. For the reasons stated above, the impugned notices issued by the respondent No. 2, the Superintendent of Taxes as well as the impugned orders passed on the basis thereof cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside and quashed. 14. The petitions are, therefore, allowed. The impugned notice and the impugned orders passed in pursuance thereof are set aside. I make no order as to cost. However, the respondent No. 2 may issue notice afresh to the petitioner stating the reasons and grounds with material facts on the basis of which he is satisfied that for proper realisation of the tax payable under the Act, furnishing of security/additional security is necessary. If the respondent No. 2 is not satisfied with the causes shown by the petitioner in response to the notice, he may pass appropriate order after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The respondent No. 2 is directed not to realise the security money in pursuance to the impugned orders. The respondent No. 2 is further directed to issue necessary declaration forms and the tax clearance certificate to the petitioner, if payment of assessed tax is not outstanding against such petitioner. Petitions allowed.