Valid service on authorised agent governs limitation; accountant needs written authority, so appeal time ran from first valid notice.

Service of an assessment order on an accountant is ineffective unless the accountant has been appointed in writing to receive notice under the applicable sales tax rules. In the absence of written authority, the accountant is not treated as an agent for service, so notice served on him does not satisfy the statutory requirement of valid service. Limitation for filing the appeal therefore runs from the first valid service, and not from the invalid service on the accountant. On that basis, the appeal was treated as being within time and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's accountant was an agent within the meaning of rule 77(1)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules; (ii) whether service of the assessment order on the accountant was valid and legally binding; (iii) whether the appeal filed on 2 February 1968 was within limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's accountant was an agent within the meaning of rule 77(1)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules.

Analysis: Rule 77(1)(a) permits service on the dealer, licensee, manager or agent, but does not specifically include an accountant. Rule 77-A separately deals with service on a lawyer, accountant or authorised agent and makes such service effectual only where the person is appointed in writing by the dealer for that purpose. In the absence of evidence of written authority, the accountant could not be treated as an agent for service under rule 77(1)(a).

Conclusion: The accountant was not the assessee's agent within the meaning of rule 77(1)(a).

Issue (ii): Whether service of the assessment order on the accountant was valid and legally binding.

Analysis: Service on an accountant is effective only if the accountant has been appointed in writing to receive notice. No finding or record showed any such written appointment. Therefore, service on the accountant did not satisfy the statutory requirement of valid service.

Conclusion: Service on the accountant was not valid and legal service.

Issue (iii): Whether the appeal filed on 2 February 1968 was within limitation.

Analysis: Since service on the accountant was invalid, the earlier date could not be treated as the operative date for computation of limitation. The later service on the secretary was the relevant service for calculating the appeal period, and on that basis the appeal was in time.

Conclusion: The appeal was within time.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the assessee by holding that the accountant was not an authorised agent for service, that service on him was invalid, and that the appeal was not time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes service on an accountant only if he is authorised in writing, service on the accountant is ineffective in the absence of such written authority and limitation must be computed from the first valid service.

---