Jurisdictional service of notice under section 21 failed where rule 77 requirements for valid service were not satisfied.

Service of notice under section 21 is a jurisdictional precondition to valid proceedings, and compliance with rule 77 is mandatory. Where personal service through the process server failed, affixation was used without recorded reasons, and the registered notice was received by a brother-in-law without proof of authority to accept service, the requirements of rule 77(4) were not met. The notice was therefore not validly served and the proceedings initiated under section 21 were illegal and set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 21 was validly served in accordance with rule 77 so as to confer jurisdiction to initiate proceedings.

Analysis: Service of notice under section 21 is jurisdictional and is a condition precedent to the assumption of authority to proceed. The materials showed that service through the process server was unsuccessful, service by affixation was made without any recorded reason for resorting to that mode, and the registered notice was received by the assessee's brother-in-law without any material showing that he was an authorised agent, manager, munim, or a person authorised in writing to accept notice. On these findings, the requirements of rule 77(4) were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The notice was not validly served and the proceedings initiated under section 21 were illegal and liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.

---