Mandatory notice service by affixation requires prior attempts and a compliant report, or the ex parte order cannot stand.

Affixation of notice under rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 is valid only after attempted personal service or registered-post service, with recorded reasons showing those modes were not possible or that the addressee was evading service. The process-server report here failed to show prior service attempts, reasons for affixation, the exact place of affixation, and the identifying signature or thumb impression required by sub-rule (5). The notice was therefore not served in the prescribed manner, the assessee was denied a proper hearing, and the ex parte Tribunal order was rightly set aside with remand for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte order of the Tribunal was liable to be set aside on the ground that notice of hearing was not properly served in accordance with rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948.

Analysis: Service by affixation under rule 77 could be resorted to only after an attempt at personal service or service by registered post and after recording reasons showing that service by those modes was not possible or the addressee was evading service. The report of the process server did not show prior service efforts by the prescribed modes, did not record any reason for resorting to affixation, did not specify the exact place of affixation, and did not disclose the identifying person or his signature or thumb impression as required by sub-rule (5). The notice was therefore not served in the manner prescribed by law, and the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The ex parte order was unsustainable and was rightly set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision after giving the applicant-dealer a proper opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Affixation of notice is valid only when preceded by attempted service by the prescribed primary modes and supported by recorded reasons and a compliant report; failure to follow the mandatory service procedure invalidates the ex parte order.

---