Affixation as last-resort service invalidated where authorities skipped proper service at the known address.

Affixation is a last-resort mode of service and cannot be used unless the prescribed alternative modes have first been tried or found impracticable. Where the assessing authority knew the assessee's actual place of employment and the record for substituted service was vague and unreliable, proper service at the known address, including by registered post where appropriate, was required before resorting to affixation. On that basis, the alleged service was not in accordance with law, and the ex parte assessment orders, together with the recovery proceedings founded on them, were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte assessment orders and the consequential recovery proceedings were valid when the notices were allegedly served by affixation without first exhausting the other modes of service.

Analysis: The assessment records showed that notice was sought to be served under section 21, but the material supporting service was vague and unreliable. The Court found that affixation under rule 77 was a last resort and could be adopted only after the other prescribed modes of service had been tried or found impracticable. Once the assessing authority had located the assessee and knew his actual place of employment, it was necessary to make a proper attempt at service at the known address, including by registered post if appropriate, before resorting to affixation. The alleged service was therefore not in accordance with law, and the ex parte assessments based on such service could not stand.

Conclusion: The notices were not validly served and the ex parte assessment orders, together with the recovery proceedings founded on them, were liable to be quashed.

---