Valid service of tax notices requires proof of authorised recipient; notice served only on a clerk was insufficient.

Rule 28 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules requires service on the dealer, his manager or his agent, and substituted service is available only when the dealer or authorised representative cannot be found. Service of sales tax notices on a mere clerk was therefore insufficient because there was no proof that the clerk was authorised to receive notices and no admissible evidence supporting substituted service. In a taxation prosecution, valid service is a necessary foundation for penal consequences; on that basis, the acquittal was upheld and the prosecution failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of sales tax notices on the assessee's clerk amounted to valid service under rule 28 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, and if not, whether the prosecution for non-payment could stand.

Analysis: Rule 28 permits service on the dealer, his manager, or his agent, and permits substitute modes only when the dealer or his representative is not found. On the evidence, the notices were tendered only to a clerk. There was no proof that the clerk was the assessee's manager or agent, and no admissible evidence to establish authority to receive notices. There was also no proof that the assessee or his authorised representative was not found so as to justify substituted service under the rule. In a taxation prosecution, service of notice in the manner prescribed is a necessary foundation for penal consequences.

Conclusion: Service on the clerk was not valid service under rule 28, and the prosecution failed. The acquittal was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute prescribes a specific mode of service of demand or assessment notices, service on a mere clerk is insufficient unless the clerk is proved to be the dealer's manager or agent or the statutory conditions for substituted service are satisfied.

---