Judgment : B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Both the writ petitions raising the common questions of law on more or less identical set of facts, were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The question for determination in these writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners could have been registered as a "dealer" under section 12 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 without assigning any reason. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 2392 of 2000 are that the petitioner was issued with a notice under section 12(1) of the aforesaid Act. The notice was issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Guwahati, Unit "D" expressing his opinion that the petitioner was liable to registration under the aforesaid Act under section 8(l)(e), under the Schedule VI vide entry serial No. 24, but the petitioner had not made an application for the same. Accordingly by the said notice, the petitioner was directed either to apply or to show cause in writing as to why it would not be registered compulsorily in addition to taking other actions as per the provision of the Act. 4. The petitioner in response to the said notice submitted its show cause reply urging various grounds against the opinion for compulsory registration. The petitioner, inter alia, pleaded in its show cause reply that its activities do not constitute a works contract and thus is not liable to pay tax under the aforesaid Act and accordingly not liable for registration. The show cause reply was followed by another communication dated February 24, 2000 submitted by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Taxes detailing its position that the activities carried out by it, viz., X-ray, CT scan and MRI, etc., do not come under the purview of works contract as defined in section 8(l)(e), Schedule VI, entry 24 in Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. By the said communication, the petitioner requested the respondent-authority to consider the whole matter as stated in the communication. 5. By the impugned certificate of registration dated May 6, 2000, the petitioner was registered as a dealer under section 12 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. Such registration was stated to be on July 14, 1999 making the petitioner liable to pay tax with effect from April 1, 1999. 5. By the impugned certificate of registration dated May 6, 2000, the petitioner was registered as a dealer under section 12 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. Such registration was stated to be on July 14, 1999 making the petitioner liable to pay tax with effect from April 1, 1999. In column 6 of the certificate of registration, the petitioner was described as dealer dealing in "X-ray and Scanning (job work)". 6. It is the legality and validity of such registration of the petitioner making it liable for payment of tax as a dealer in x-ray and scanning (job work) which is under challenge in this writ petition. This Court while entertaining the writ petition by its order dated May 15, 2000 provided an interim protection by way of a direction not to initiate any further proceeding in pursuance of the impugned certificate of registration issued compulsorily. By the said order dated May 15, 2000, the respondents were given the liberty to approach the court for modification/cancellation or variation of the order. However, the respondents not to speak of responding to such a liberty, have not even filed any affidavit making their position clear. However, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam produced the purported records pertaining to the first writ petition. 7. I have heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned advocate for the petitioner, in the first writ petition and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the second writ petition. Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Junior Government Advocate, apart from producing the records pertaining to the first writ petition made his submission supporting the impugned action on the part of the respondents in registering petitioner in the first writ petition compulsorily by the impugned certificate of registration and issuing impugned show cause notice dated July 18, 2000 to the petitioner in the second writ petition directing to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be assessed summarily for the periods as mentioned in the notice. 8. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel leading the arguments for the petitioner submitted that there was gross violation of the principles of natural justice in issuing the certificate of registration without assigning any reason. Referring to the various provision of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, Mr. 8. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel leading the arguments for the petitioner submitted that there was gross violation of the principles of natural justice in issuing the certificate of registration without assigning any reason. Referring to the various provision of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, Mr. Dutta submitted that the activities carried out by the petitioner do not constitute any works contract so as to invoke the provisions of section 12(1) of the aforesaid Act. According to him entry 24 of the Sixth Schedule under the Act [Section 8(l)(e)] does not cover the activities of the petitioner so as to term them as involving works contract. Consequently, the petitioner is not liable for registration as dealer under section 12 of the said Act making the petitioner liable to pay tax as has been done by the impugned certificate of registration dated May 6, 2000, he submitted. Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the second writ petition submitted that the impugned show cause notice is without jurisdiction. In a nutshell, the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions submitted that the petitioners are not liable for payment of tax, their activities not involving any works contract as envisaged in entry 24 of the Sixth Schedule to the Act [Section 8(l)(e) ]. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of their arguments referred to the provisions of section2(33) and section 2(38) of the Act to bring home their points of arguments. 9. Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Junior Government Advocate, on the other hand submitted that there was nothing wrong in issuing the impugned certificate of registration and the show cause notice. He submitted that the activities of the petitioners constitute transfer of property in goods involved in a works contract of the nature specified in Schedule VI. He specifically referred to the expression "whether as goods or any other form" as incorporated in section 8(l)(e) of the Act. 10. The petitioner in the first petition was first issued with the notice under section 12(1) of the Act to show cause in writing as to why it would not be registered compulsorily. Responding to the said notice, the petitioner submitted its elaborate reply followed by the further communication dated February 24, 2000. Section 12(1) of the Act empowers the assessing officer to issue such notice. Responding to the said notice, the petitioner submitted its elaborate reply followed by the further communication dated February 24, 2000. Section 12(1) of the Act empowers the assessing officer to issue such notice. It further provides that no action shall be taken unless the assessing officer has given notice to the dealer of his intention so to do and has allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the party. Thus, the principle relating to the natural justice is inbuilt in the provision of section 12(1) of the Act. Natural justice has various facets and acting fairly is one of them. In the instant case although a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking to submit its reply which the petitioner duly complied with, the respondent-authority without dealing with any of the grounds urged in the show cause reply issued the impugned certificate of registration registering the petitioner compulsorily as dealer under section 12 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, 11. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the certificate of registration need not contain the reasons for registration and that if the reasons are discernible in the records, same would meet the requirement of due compliance of recording reasons following the principles of natural justice. It was in that context, the records were produced on behalf of the respondents. I have carefully gone through the records. The impugned certificate of registration was issued pursuant to the note given by the Superintendent of Taxes. Such a note was endorsed on July 14, 1999. The note dated July 14, 1999 which was preceded by the note dated September 1, 1998 for issuance of notice to the petitioner is reproduced below : No compliance in original terms with the show cause notice issued contemplating compulsory registration. The dealer although submitted that the Indian Radiological and Imaging Association, Assam Branch of which he is a member has been agitating the matter before the honourable High Court of Guwahati. He had not been able to produce any stay order against our proceedings or any pronouncement of the honourable Court in support of his contention for liability. Therefore, in order to facilitate assignment and realisation of Taxes, etc., the dealer is hereby compulsorily registered under section 12 of the Act with effect from April 1, 1999. He had not been able to produce any stay order against our proceedings or any pronouncement of the honourable Court in support of his contention for liability. Therefore, in order to facilitate assignment and realisation of Taxes, etc., the dealer is hereby compulsorily registered under section 12 of the Act with effect from April 1, 1999. The assessable turnovers if any of earlier years/periods from the date of registration will be brought to assess under section 17(6) of the Act. Issue R/C. Sd./- Superintendent of Taxes. 12. The aforesaid note dated July 14, 1999 based on which the impugned certificate of registration has been issued does not even refer to the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner. The only ground assigned for issuance of the impugned certificate of registration is that the petitioner had not been able to produce any stay order against the proceedings or any pronouncement of the court in support of the contention for non-liability. It is on that basis the petitioner has been compulsorily registered under section 12(1) of the Act with effect from April 1, 1999. No other reasons have been assigned. The Superintendent of Taxes also did not deal with the various contentions raised by the petitioner including the contention that its activities do not constitute any works contract. Thus on the face of it, the issuance of the show cause notice was an empty formality. There is no gainsaying that the purpose behind issuance of a show cause notice asking the concerned party to furnish his reply is to examine the matter on the basis of the formation of tentative opinion and the contention raised by the party to negative such formation of opinion. The records produced by the respondents and the note dated July 14, 1999 which was made the sole basis of issuance of the impugned certificate of registration do not fulfil such a requirement. Thus, I am constrained to uphold the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned certificate of registration was issued without following the cardinal principle of natural justice expressly provided under the proviso to section 12(1) of the Act. 13. In view of the above conclusion and finding arrived at based on the materials available on records, I need not go into other aspect of the matter. 13. In view of the above conclusion and finding arrived at based on the materials available on records, I need not go into other aspect of the matter. On this score alone, the impugned certificate of registration is not sustainable being violative of proviso to section 12(1) of the Act and accordingly liable to be set aside and quashed. 14. Coming to the second writ petition, the issue involved is the same. The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of the show cause notice. However, instead of responding to the show cause notice by submitting its reply, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition urging various grounds as in the first writ petition. The impugned show cause notice has been issued directing the petitioner to show cause as to why it should not be assessed summarily for the periods in question. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises is an issue, which can even be urged by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice and such issues can also be adjudicated by the authority which has issued a notice. The said authority is a statutory functionary constituted under the Act and he must be allowed to decide the matter. It will be a sound and wise discretion not to entertain the writ petition at the show cause notice stage. In the case of Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse as reported in AIR(2004) SCW 416, the apex Court observed as follows : This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless, the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court. Further, when the court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, granted. 15. In the instant case the writ petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court making challenge to the impugned show cause notice. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner should respond to the show cause notice by way of filing its reply urging all the grounds as have been urged in the writ petition and as may be available to it. Upon receipt of such show cause reply, the competent authority of the respondent should decide the issue consistently with the provision of the Act and dealing with the contention which might be raised by the petitioner. 16. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, the impugned certificate of registration dated May 6, 2000 in the first writ petition stands set aside and quashed and the matter stands remanded back to the competent authority of the respondents for a fresh decision in the manner and method indicated below. The petitioner in the second writ petition should submit its reply to the impugned show cause notice. Upon submission of such reply to the show cause notice, the respondents shall decide the issue in both the writ petitions by way of assigning reasons and with speaking order. The representatives of the petitioners may be given a personal hearing towards completion of the entire exercises which the respondents shall complete as expeditiously as possible. If need be, the respondents shall issue fresh show cause notice to the petitioner detailing the reasons as to why the petitioners are required to be registered compulsorily under the relevant provision of the Act. In such a situation the petitioner would furnish their respective reply taking all the grounds as may be available to them. If need be, the respondents shall issue fresh show cause notice to the petitioner detailing the reasons as to why the petitioners are required to be registered compulsorily under the relevant provision of the Act. In such a situation the petitioner would furnish their respective reply taking all the grounds as may be available to them. Thereafter the respondents shall take decision on assigning reasons by way of a speaking order consistently with the observations made above. 17. The directions as contained above, would not mean a mechanical approach to the matter. The respondents will be at liberty to take an independent decision on the basis of the provision of the Act and the materials available on records not to proceed with the matter any further. Prescribed authority is conferred with the discretion to dispense with the same upon acceptance of the pleas raised on behalf of the writ petitioners. Such discretion is governed by the maxim "discrertio est discernere per legem quid sit justum" (discretion consists a knowing what is just in law). Needless to say that the discretion in general is the discernment what is right and proper. It denotes knowledge and prudence, that discernment which enables a person to judge critically of what is correct and proper united with caution, to discern between falsity and truth, between shadow and substance, between equity and colorable glosses and pretences and not to do according to the will and private affections and ill will. It has to be done according to rules of reasons and justice, not according to the private opinion. It has to be done according to law and not humor. It is not arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular. 18. Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition in W.P. (C) No. 2392 of 2000 stands allowed to the extent indicated above and the writ petition in W.P. (C) No. 4843 of 2000 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost.