Invalid substituted service and limitation ruled against the revenue where witness-backed verification of affixture was absent.

Substituted service by affixture was held invalid where the process-server's report was not supported by witnesses identifying the place of residence, office or business, and there was no affidavit showing the process-server's personal knowledge of the premises. Applying Rule 77 of the Sales Tax Rules, 1948 as analogous to Order V, Rule 17 CPC, the Court held that such verification is ordinarily required for valid substituted service. On limitation, the record did not disprove the assessee's claim that knowledge of the order arose only when recovery proceedings commenced, so the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was not time-barred. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter remitted for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether substituted service effected without witnesses to the process-server's report was valid, and whether the assessee's appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Rule 77 of the Sales Tax Rules, 1948 was treated as analogous to Order V, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On that basis, the Court held that where notice is affixed, the process-server must ordinarily obtain witnesses to the identification of the place of residence, office, or business, unless the process-server's affidavit shows personal knowledge of the premises. As no such witness-backed verification was shown, the substituted service could not be sustained. Since the record did not disprove the assessee's case that knowledge of the order was acquired only when recovery proceedings began, the appeal could not be treated as time-barred.

Conclusion: The substituted service was invalid and the appeal was not barred by limitation; the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted for disposal on merits.

---