Mandatory notice service hierarchy invalidated an assessment made after affixture without prior registered-post attempt.

Rule 52 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules required a mandatory hierarchy for service of pre-assessment notice: where the dealer's address was known, service by registered post had to be attempted before resorting to affixture. Because no registered-post attempt was made and the notice was merely affixed after the shop was found closed, service was invalid. As the notice was not properly served, the assessee was denied a real opportunity to file objections, and the assessment founded on that defective service was unsustainable. The assessment was annulled and the matter was directed to proceed afresh after proper service and an opportunity to object.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service of the pre-assessment notice by affixture without first attempting service by registered post complied with Rule 52 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. (ii) Whether the assessment order passed without proper service of notice and opportunity to file objections was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether service of the pre-assessment notice by affixture without first attempting service by registered post complied with Rule 52 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959.

Analysis: Rule 52 prescribed a hierarchy for service of notice. Where the dealer's address was known, service by registered post had to be attempted first, and affixture could be adopted only if the earlier modes were not practicable. The record showed that no attempt was made to serve the notice by registered post and the notice was simply affixed after the shop was found closed. That course did not satisfy the mandatory requirement of the rule.

Conclusion: The service of notice was not in accordance with Rule 52 and was invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order passed without proper service of notice and opportunity to file objections was sustainable.

Analysis: Since the statutory mode of service was not complied with, the assessee was effectively denied an opportunity to file objections before assessment. An assessment founded on such defective service could not be sustained, as it offended the procedural safeguard embedded in the rule and the requirement of fair hearing.

Conclusion: The assessment order was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was annulled for non-compliance with the prescribed notice procedure, and the matter was directed to proceed afresh after proper service and opportunity to object.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a mandatory sequence for service of notice, that procedure must be strictly followed before resorting to affixture, and an assessment made without such compliance and without a real opportunity of objection cannot stand.

---