RAJU, J.

The above batch of writ petitions have been heard along with Writ Appeal No. 1013 of 1997, which came to be filed against a conditional order of stay granted by a learned single Judge of this Court in a pending writ petition. Initially, one batch of writ petitions came to be heard and orders were reserved in them on December 15, 1997. Subsequently, some of the cases relating to the very same batch, which were not included in the initial batch of cases, came up before the first Bench itself and on the representations of the counsel appearing in the second-listed batch of cases that the arguments submitted in the earlier batch may be taken as the same for the said second listed batch of cases also and as the learned counsel appearing on either side represented that the second listed cases also can be disposed of along with the initially listed batch of cases, the entire batch of writ petitions are dealt with together.

The slight variations apart, in the manner of relief sought for or the nature of writ, these writ petitions involve for consideration the constitutional validity of section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959Central Sales Tax Act, 1956

Mr. C. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel, supported by Mr. Pramod Kumar Chopda, Mr. Sivanandam and Mr. Ram Gopal spearheaded the attack, while the other learned counsel individually adopted the submissions of the learned counsel made as above in support of the challenge. So far as the challenge vis-a-vis article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the penal provisions engrafted in section 12(3) as substituted by Tamil Nadu Act No. 25 of 1993, which had no relation to the circumstances relating to imposition of tax and really disproportionate to the evil sought to be remedied, cannot be characterised as a mere provision for penalty and, if enforced, renders the very carrying on of trade or business a peril and an act of distress and, therefore, it is an unjust and unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business or trade and opposed also to the basic and essential requirements of the principles of rule of law and consequently violative of article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. So far as the challenge based on article 14 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the same is projected from several angles. It is claimed that the provision equates dissimilar persons and different situations, by imposing uniform or same rates or scales or penalty by merely relating it to tax assessed and, therefore, it is violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. The further aspect of challenge that related to the alleged violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India is that the impugned provision does not give any discretion to the assessing authorities to exercise quasi-judicial powers under the Act to determine the quantum of penalty to be levied in individual cases, depending upon the culpability of the assessee or the gravity of the situation, which really led to the lapse or default or violation and that too without any reference to the wilfulness or otherwise of the assessee concerned by treating all categories of such persons as falling within the same group and placing them on the same plane. It is also contended that it would be very much difficult and often it would even be impossible for an assessee to be sure of any claim for exemption or anticipate the fate of any claim made for exemption depending upon the nature of the transaction and the view that a particular assessing authority or the other authorities under the Act would take ultimately, inasmuch as what would be the ultimate assessment in a given case could not be within the exact comprehension of the assessee or his representative. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contend that the expression "shall" used in section 12(3) of the Act ought to be necessarily con