JUDGMENT P. G. AGARWAL, J. - These two writ petitions, Civil Rule No. 1736 of 1999 and W.P. (C) No. 8489 of 2001 are disposed of by this common judgment as the common question of law has been raised in these writ petitions. W.P. (C) No. 8489 of 2001 has been filed by the Assam Drug Dealers Association whereas Civil Rule No. 1736 of 1999 has been filed by the Kamrup Medicine Dealers Association. Heard, Dr. A. K. Saraf, Senior Advocate, Dr. B. P. Todi, Advocate, Sri D. Baruah, Advocate, as learned counsels for the petitioners and Mr. B. J. Talukdar, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. The petitioners before us are two dealers association representing medicine dealers who deal in medicine by way of retail selling. The question that has been raised is whether the retail dealers of medicine are liable to register themselves as "dealers" under section 11 of the AGST Act, 1993 (Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993), for short "the Act". Section 11 of the Act reads as follows : "11. Compulsory registration. - (1) Every dealer liable to pay tax under the provisions of this Act shall get himself registered with the assessing officer and shall possess a certificate of registration. (2) Every dealer required by sub-section (1) to be registered shall apply for registration to the assessing officer in the prescribed manner and obtain a certificate of registration. (3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (2) the assessing officer shall, if he is satisfied after such inquiry as may be deemed necessary that the application is in order, register the applicant." The case of the petitioners is that the medicine is taxable at the stage of first sale made by the dealer in the State at the rate prescribed in entry 10 of Schedule II attached to the Act. It is stated that the retail sellers and the wholesale sellers being the second sellers of the State are not liable to pay tax in respect of medicines and as such in view of section 7 and section 9 of the Act the members of the petitioners' association who purchased medicines locally within the State are not liable to pay any sales tax in so far as selling of medicines is concerned. It is further submitted that in view of the provisions of section 11 as quoted above, the members of the petitioners' association are not required to be registered as they are liable to pay any tax. However, the members have been harassed by the officers of the respondents for non-registration of their firms and so the writ petitions. Section 7(2) of the Act reads as follows : "Subject to the other provisions of this Act very dealer to whom sub-section (1) does not apply, shall be liable to pay tax under this Act on all sales or purchases of goods other than goods specified in Schedule I with effect from the date immediately following the date on which his gross turnover calculated from the commencement of any year ending after the appointed day first exceeds the taxable quantum at any time within such year : Provided that such dealer shall not be liable to pay any tax under this Act during such year in respect of his turnover up to the taxable quantum." The case of the respondent-State is that, the dealer cannot claim outright exemption from the liability of payment of tax on the ground of sale at second or subsequent point as mentioned in Schedule II of the Act. Section 8(3)(ii) of the Act reads as follows : "In respect of goods specified in Schedule II, the turnover during such year of goods which is shown, to the satisfaction of the assessing authority, to have been subjected to tax in the State generally at the specified rates or at such lower or zero rate as provided in any other provisions of this Act in respect of sale of such goods." The learned counsel for the respondent-State has therefore submitted that the dealer is required to satisfy the assessing authority that the goods sold by him were subjected to tax once by the State and as such the dealer is not liable to pay tax in respect of such sales. The requirement under section 11 of the Act is in respect of liability of the dealer to pay tax and not payment of actual tax in view of the provisions of sections 2 and 8(3)(ii) as quoted above the liability does exist and it stands satisfied in case the medicine dealer can show that the goods sold to him were already taxed once. The petitioners' association also want to proceed on the presumption that these medicine dealers purchased their entire stock locally. There is no bar under the law for them to import medicines from outside the State. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has further submitted that these dealers of medicine also pass on the tax paid by them or collected from them by the manufacturer and as such their registration is a must to check the evasion of tax or illegal collection if any. So far the alleged harassment to M/s. Ganesh Medical and Sarkar Medicos is concerned, the allegations have been denied by the respondents. Moreover, section 12(1) of the Act provides as under : "Registration by the assessing officer. - The assessing officer may, in addition to taking any other action under the provisions of this Act, require any dealer who, in his opinion, is liable to registration but has not made an application in this behalf, to apply for registration and register him : Provided that no action under this sub-section shall be taken unless the assessing officer has given notice to the dealer of his intention so to do and has allowed him a reasonable opportunity of being heard." It is therefore held that the Act provides that in suitable cases the assessing officer has the power to ask the dealer to get himself registered. In the case of A. V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala [1957] 8 STC 561, the apex Court held : "There is a broad distinction between the provisions contained in the statute in regard to the exemptions of tax or refund or rebate of tax on the one hand and in regard to the non-liability to tax or non-imposition of tax on the other. In the former case, but for the provisions as regards the exemptions or refund or rebate of tax, the sales or purchases would have to be included in the gross turnover of the dealer because they are prima facie liable to tax and the only thing which the dealer is entitled to in respect thereof is the deduction from the gross turnover in order to arrive at the net turnover on which the tax can be imposed. In the latter case, the sales or purchases are exempted from taxation altogether. .......... In the latter case, the sales or purchases are exempted from taxation altogether. .......... This position is not at all affected by the provisions with regard to registration and submissions of returns of the sales tax by the dealers under the Act. The Legislature, in spite of its disability in the matter of the imposition of sales tax by virtue of the provisions of article 286 of the Constitution, may for the purposes of the registration of a dealer and submission of the returns of sales tax include these transactions in the dealer's turnover. Such inclusion, however, for the purposes aforesaid would not affect the non-liability of these transactions to levy or imposition of sales tax by virtue of the provisions of article 286 of the Constitution and the corresponding provision enacted in the Act, as above." In view of the fact that the medicines sold by the dealers, which are already taxed at the first stage are liable to be excluded/exempted from further taxation, it does not mean that the dealers are not required to get themselves registered even. The obligation for registration is distinct from the obligation to pay tax and as such we find no force in the submissions of the petitioners that the members of the petitioners' association are not liable to be registered and the registration made in respect of the two firms are liable to be cancelled. Both the writ petitions have got no merit and they are accordingly dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.