TMI Blog1983 (1) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order only although the order itself had been challenged in appeal and an application under section 30 for recall of the order was also filed. While this petition and appeal were pending the application under section 30 was rejected against which the petitioner went up in appeal which was allowed. Consequently the ex parte order giving raise to this petition stood set aside. An application was filed on behalf of the respondent fordismissing the writ petition as infructuous. But before this application could be decided the Sales Tax Officer passed fresh orders under section 21 which too were challenged by an application under Order 6, rule 17, which was allowed by this Court. Although the order is not challenged on merits but the learned cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in case the assessee was not found or refused to accept the notice it may be served by affixation. On 23rd March, 1976, the process-server submitted a report that the firm had been closed since long and as the proprietor of the firm was not available service was effected as directed by affixation. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that this procedure was adopted as limitation was expiring on 31st March, 1976. Rule 77 prescribes service of notice by (a) giving a copy to the dealer or manager, etc., that is, personal service; (b) by leaving it at last known place of business or residence or to some adult member of dealer's family; (c) by registered post if address was known. Sub-clause (d) provides that if none of the modes a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... But the application of mind on non-practicability of sending notice by registered post had to be recorded on the order sheet and not in the counteraffidavit filed in this Court. We now come to the real controversy whether a joint notice under clauses (a) and (d) as was issued in this case and was served by affixation can be held to be valid. The words in clause (d) that if "none of the aforesaid modes is practicable" is significant. It has to be decided objectively. It cannot be assumed. The officer or authority resorting to this mode of service has to form an opinion. It cannot be anticipated. We are fortified in our view by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gopal Das Uttam Chand v. Sales Tax Officer [1970] 25 STC 229. As a com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
