JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.K. Mahanta, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondent. 2. The challenge in the present proceeding is in respect of a notice dated November 11, 1998 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Taxes, Guwahati, Unit-C raising a demand for payment of tax as shown in the said notice. The aforesaid demand notice has been issued to the writ petitioner on the basis that he continued to remain a partner of the registered partnership firm under the name and style of "Lion Tea Company" till July 3, 1993. According to the Superintendent of Taxes, as the registration certificate of the aforesaid firm was amended on July 3, 1993 deleting the name of the petitioner as a partner, the liability of the petitioner as a partner of the said firm will continue upto July 3, 1993. 3. The averments made in the writ application and oral arguments advanced center around one principal issue. It is contended that the materials enclosed to the writ petition would go to show that the partnership firm, i.e., Lion Tea Company was converted into a proprietorship firm with effect from April 1, 1987 and the certificate of registration was amended on July 3, 1993 with effect from April 1, 1987. According to the petitioner, if the firm ceased to be in existence with effect from April 1, 1987 as certified by the authority, Under Section 53 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 no liability can be passed on the partnership firm including the petitioner after April 1, 1987. 4. The pleadings advanced are not opposed. The oral arguments that the impugned notice is wholly without jurisdiction, are being sought to be defeated by the learned Government advocate by contending that remedy for the writ petitioner lies with the department and not in the writ court. It is difficult to accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the State Government, in view of the fact that as against the demand raised by the impugned notice dated November 11, 1998, any approach to the authority is not contemplated under the statute. It is difficult to accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the State Government, in view of the fact that as against the demand raised by the impugned notice dated November 11, 1998, any approach to the authority is not contemplated under the statute. That apart, as the materials on record amply support the case and contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, which furthermore are not denied by the State respondents, this Court fails to see as to why the writ petitioner should be asked to go back to the department and face a proceeding which even if initiated is likely to futile. 5. The materials on record having clearly disclosed that the partnership firm has ceased to be in existence with effect from April 1, 1987 the liability of the writ petitioner as a partner must also be understood to have ceased with effect from the said date. If that be so, section 53 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act would constitute a clear bar for the issuance of the impugned notice dated November 11, 1998. The said notice also has the effect of overlooking the fact that the amendment of the Registration Certificate made on July 3, 1993 was with effect from April 1, 1987. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition has to be allowed and the impugned notice dated November 11, 1998 stands accordingly set aside and quashed. In favour of Department