Substituted service by affixation requires strict statutory compliance; invalid service defeated the limitation objection.

Substituted service by affixation is valid only when the statutory preconditions are met: ordinary modes of service must first be attempted, and the authority must record satisfaction that the addressee is avoiding service or that service cannot otherwise be effected. On the facts, the notice had merely returned marked "left", the authorities knew of another business address, and no proper enquiry or recorded satisfaction preceded affixation, so service was invalid. Because the limitation objection depended on that purported service, the rejection of the revision petition as time-barred was not justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in rejecting the revision petition as barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the purported service of notice in form 26 on 11 May 1970 was valid in law.

Issue (i): Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in rejecting the revision petition as barred by limitation.

Analysis: The rejection of the revision petition rested on the assumption that the notice of disposal had been validly served so that the delay in approaching the Board could not be excused. The validity of service was therefore integral to the limitation question.

Conclusion: The rejection on the ground of limitation was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the purported service of notice in form 26 on 11 May 1970 was valid in law.

Analysis: Rule 84 of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules required personal service, service by messenger, or registered post in the first instance. Service by affixation could be used only after an attempted service by the prescribed methods had failed and the authority, for recorded reasons, was satisfied that the dealer was avoiding service or that service could not otherwise be effected. The registered notice had returned with the remark "left", the authorities knew of another business address, and no proper enquiry or recorded satisfaction under the proviso preceded affixation. The mandatory conditions for substituted service were not complied with.

Conclusion: The purported service by affixation was not valid in law.

Final Conclusion: The questions were answered against the revenue and the assessee succeeded on the issue of valid service, which also displaced the limitation objection.

Ratio Decidendi: Substituted service by affixation is valid only after compliance with the statutory preconditions and recorded satisfaction that ordinary service has failed; without such compliance, service is invalid and any consequence founded on it cannot stand.

---