ORDER BILAL NAZKI, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. A notice under section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act") is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that it is a firm engaged in manufacturing and trading of liquor having its office at Cuddapah and factory at Vijayawada. A notice dated March 8, 1999 under section 17 of the Act was served on the second respondent asking him to pay an amount of Rs. 17,08,764 from out of the amounts due to the petitioner towards alleged arrears of sales tax due from an independent third party M/s. Sri Radha Krishna Wine Distributors, Cuddapah. The petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 5435 of 1999 contending that he was not responsible for the alleged arrears of another proprietary concern since the petitioner was an independent partnership firm. This court disposed of the writ petition by order dated March 17, 1999 directing the first respondent to reconcile the payments made by the third party and thereafter pass a speaking order and maintain status quo till then. On March 17, 1999 the second respondent issued a cheque for Rs. 13,03,960 in favour of the first respondent towards sales tax arrears of third party. The cheque was returned to the second respondent and the first respondent issued a fresh notice under section 17 of the Act on March 23, 1999 requesting the second respondent to issue a cheque for Rs. 9,17,731. Eventually in response to the notice dated March 23, 1999 the second respondent issued a cheque for Rs. 9,17,731 and the present writ petition was filed with a prayer that the first respondent should not encash the said cheque. However, during the pendency of these proceedings, this cheque was encashed. The only question that has to be answered in this case is whether a notice under section 17 of the Act could have been issued to the second respondent ordering payment of the amounts which were due to the petitioner on account of default of a third party M/s. Sri Radha Krishna Wine Distributors, Cuddapah, towards sales tax. Section 17 of the APGST Act lays down, "17. Recovery of tax and other dues payable under the Act from persons from whom money is due to the dealer. Section 17 of the APGST Act lays down, "17. Recovery of tax and other dues payable under the Act from persons from whom money is due to the dealer. - (1) The assessing authority, may at any time or from time to time, by notice in writing (a copy of which shall be forwarded to the dealer at his last address known to the assessing authority) require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the dealer, or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for, or on account of the dealer, to pay to the assessing authority either forthwith if the money has become due or is so held, or within the time specified in the notice (but not before the money becomes due or is held), so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due by the dealer in respect of (arrears of tax, interest, penalty or fee) or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than that amount." Before section 17 of the Act is applied, it is imperative on the tax authorities to ascertain whether any amounts belonging to a defaulter are due or are likely to become due from the person to whom a notice under section 17 of the Act is given. In the present case there is no finding in the impugned order with regard to the satisfaction that any amount was due from the second respondent to the petitioner. The amount was due from a third party. The only connection between the petitioner and the third party was that the third party was a partner in the petitioner's firm. As a partner of the petitioner's firm what was the amount due to him from the second respondent was at no point of time ascertained and as a matter of fact in a partnership concern it will also not be possible to ascertain the amounts due to him individually from the second respondent. Such a question has already been considered by the Supreme Court in K. Srihari Rao & Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sirpur, Kagaznagar [1990] 79 STC 117. Such a question has already been considered by the Supreme Court in K. Srihari Rao & Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sirpur, Kagaznagar [1990] 79 STC 117. Following the same judgment, we are of the view that the sales tax authorities could have not issued the impugned notice and ordered attachment and payment of money that was due to the petitioner on account of the default of a third party. In these circumstances, we allow the writ petition, quash the impugned notice and direct the first respondent to refund the amount to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are at liberty to recover the dues from the defaulting dealer in accordance with law. No costs. That the rule nisi has been made absolute as above.