Retrospective firm conversion bars demand notice against former partner where liability had already ceased.

A demand notice could not be issued against a former partner after the firm had converted into a proprietorship concern with effect from 1 April 1987, because the registration certificate was amended retrospectively to reflect that date and the partner's liability had ceased accordingly. Section 53 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 barred fastening liability for any period after the firm had ceased to exist, so the notice was without jurisdiction. The objection that the petitioner should first approach the department was rejected, as the statute did not provide such a remedy against the impugned demand notice.

---

---

Issues: Whether a demand notice could be issued against a former partner after the partnership firm had ceased to exist with effect from an earlier date and the registration certificate was amended retrospectively.

Analysis: The materials on record showed that the partnership firm had converted into a proprietorship concern with effect from 1 April 1987 and that the registration certificate was amended on 3 July 1993 with effect from that earlier date. On that basis, the petitioner's liability as a partner had also ceased from 1 April 1987. In such circumstances, section 53 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 barred issuance of a demand notice seeking to fasten liability for a period after the firm had ceased to exist. The Court also found no merit in the objection that the petitioner should first approach the department, since the statute did not contemplate such a remedy against the impugned demand notice.

Conclusion: The demand notice was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained against the petitioner.

---