Affixation as last-resort service under rule 77 requires prior finding that other prescribed modes are impracticable.

Rule 77 requires service of notice through one of four prescribed modes, and affixation under clause (d) is permissible only as a last resort after the Sales Tax Officer reasonably determines that the other modes are not practicable. The process-server cannot substitute that decision by choosing affixation on his own. The text also distinguishes clause (b), which requires leaving a copy at the dealer's last known place of business or residence, from merely affixing a notice outside closed premises; affixation is not equivalent to that mode. The document concludes that notice by affixation was invalid and rejected as service under rule 77.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service of notice by affixation was valid under rule 77 without first exhausting the other prescribed modes; (ii) whether service by affixation could be treated as service under clause (b) of rule 77.

Issue (i): Whether service of notice by affixation was valid under rule 77 without first exhausting the other prescribed modes.

Analysis: Rule 77 provides four alternative modes of service, with affixation under clause (d) being available only when none of the other modes is practicable. The choice of mode must be made by the Sales Tax Officer on consideration of the facts, and cannot be left to the process-server. On the facts found, only an attempt at personal service was made and the remaining modes were not tried, nor was there any proper determination by the Sales Tax Officer that the other modes were impracticable.

Conclusion: The service by affixation was not valid under rule 77. The answer to issue (i) is in the negative, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether service by affixation could be treated as service under clause (b) of rule 77.

Analysis: Clause (b) contemplates leaving a copy at the dealer's last known place of business or residence, or with an adult family member, which is distinct from merely affixing a notice outside a closed business premises. Treating affixation as service under clause (b) would render the scheme of the rule inconsistent and would make clause (b) redundant.

Conclusion: Service by affixation could not be treated as service under clause (b) of rule 77. The answer to issue (ii) is in the negative, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the department and the validity of notice by affixation was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory rule prescribes alternative modes of service, affixation can be used only as a last resort after the competent authority has formed a reasoned view that the other modes are not practicable; mere affixation is not equivalent to leaving notice at the place of business.

---