Valid service of tax notice failed where telegram was not a permitted mode, leaving proceedings time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Valid service of notice under Rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules was not established before 1 April 1965. Tendering the notice to the dealer, manager, or agent was not proved because the dealer was absent when the peon visited the business premises, and the alternative service method was also unmet because there was no showing that the dealer could not be found after reasonable effort. A telegram from the Sales Tax Officer was not a permitted mode of service, since Rule 77 requires service of a copy of the notice. In the absence of valid service before limitation expired, proceedings under section 21 were time-barred and without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was served with a valid notice under section 21 before 1 April 1965, and whether the proceedings initiated under that provision were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules prescribes the modes by which a notice under the Act may be served. Service by tendering the copy to the dealer or his manager or agent was not established, as the dealer was not present when the peon went to the business premises. The alternative mode under clause (b) was also not satisfied, because the record did not show that the dealer could not easily be found after reasonable effort. A telegram sent by the Sales Tax Officer was not a mode of service contemplated by rule 77, since the rule speaks of service of a copy of the notice and does not authorise service through telegraphic communication. As no valid service before 1 April 1965 was proved, the proceedings under section 21 had become time-barred and lacked jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The notice was not validly served before the expiry of limitation, and the proceedings under section 21 were without jurisdiction. The petitioner succeeded.

---