Alternative modes of service and limitation: registered post was valid, and writ jurisdiction could not bypass the appeal bar.

Service of an assessment order by registered post was valid because the TNGST scheme permitted any one of the prescribed modes under rule 52(1), which were alternative and not cumulative. That valid service started limitation for the statutory appeal, so the time-bar objection was sustained and the appeal could not proceed. The penalty challenge also could not be examined in writ jurisdiction after the appeal failed on limitation, because article 226 cannot be used to defeat a limitation bar. A wrong citation of the source provision did not invalidate the penalty where substantive power existed under the correct provision.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of the assessment order by registered post under rule 52(1) of the TNGST Rules was valid so as to start limitation for the statutory appeal, and whether the levy of penalty could be challenged in writ jurisdiction despite dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under section 31 of the TNGST Act read with rule 52(1) permitted service of notice by any one of the prescribed modes, which were alternative and not cumulative. Service by registered post was therefore a valid mode, and the authorities were justified in treating the order as duly served. The challenge to the penalty could not be examined on merits once the appeal had failed on limitation. The invocation of article 226 could not be used to defeat the bar of limitation, and the mere mention of section 12(3)(b) instead of section 16(2) did not invalidate the penalty when the substantive power existed under the correct provision.

Conclusion: The service was valid, the limitation objection was sustained, and the writ challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The order refusing to condone delay was upheld and the assessment challenge was not entertained on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute provides alternative modes of service, any one valid mode is sufficient; writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to overcome limitation, and a wrong citation of the source provision does not nullify an order if the power is otherwise available under the correct provision.

---