Valid service of nil assessment order determines appeal time and revisional jurisdiction under sales tax law.

A nil assessment order under the Madras General Sales Tax Act acquires legal effect only when it is served in a prescribed statutory mode. Mere file notation that the order was "despatched" did not prove valid service under the rules, so the appeal period had not begun and the Deputy Commissioner could not validly exercise suo motu revisional power under section 32 while that limitation period remained open. The presumption of regularity could not cure the absence of proof of service. On that footing, the revisional authority lacked jurisdiction and the assessment on the disputed turnover was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner could validly exercise suo motu revisional power under section 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, when the original nil assessment order had not been duly communicated to the assessee.

Analysis: A revisional order under section 32(2)(a) could not be passed while the time for appeal under section 31 had not expired, and the appeal period began only from service of the assessment order in the prescribed manner. Under rule 28 of the General Sales Tax Rules, service had to be effected by one of the recognised modes, such as delivery, leaving at the business or residence, registered post, or affixture. A mere file endorsement that the order was 'despatched' did not show which prescribed mode was adopted, and there was no material to establish valid service. In those circumstances, the presumption of regular performance of official acts could not be invoked to cure the defect.

Conclusion: The assessment order was not duly communicated to the assessee, the revisional authority lacked jurisdiction, and the assessment on the disputed turnover was rightly set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A nil assessment order acquires binding effect only when it is communicated in one of the prescribed statutory modes of service, and a bare entry that it was 'despatched' is insufficient to found revisional jurisdiction or start limitation for appeal.

---