Valid service of tax notice requires a real household family member; service on an unrelated brother was ineffective.

Service of notice under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act by delivery to an adult male family member under rule 77(b) requires the recipient to be shown as a real member of the dealer's household, not merely a relative. A brother who was neither joint with the assessee nor connected with the business, and who was not found to be residing with the family, could not be treated as a valid family member for service. Because valid service was a prerequisite to assuming jurisdiction under section 21, the notice was not duly served.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of notice under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act on the assessee's brother, who was neither joint with the assessee nor connected with the assessee's business, was valid service under rule 77(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules.

Analysis: Under rule 77(b), where the dealer or his manager or agent cannot be easily found, service may be effected by tendering the notice to an adult male member of the dealer's family. The expression "family" may be understood broadly, but the person served must still be shown to be a member of the household in a real sense. On the facts found, the brother was not joint with the assessee and had no connection with the business, and there was no finding that he was residing with the assessee's family. He therefore could not be treated as an adult male member of the assessee's family for the purpose of valid service. Since service of the notice was necessary before jurisdiction under section 21 could be assumed, the defect was fatal.

Conclusion: Service of the notice on the brother was not valid, and the notice under section 21 was not duly served. The answer was against the department and in favour of the assessee.

---