Service by affixture requires prior application of mind; affixture without that exercise is invalid under the tax rules.

Rule 52(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Rules, 1939 permits service by affixture when the ordinary modes of service are not practicable; it does not require every earlier mode to be exhausted in sequence. At the same time, the assessing authority must itself apply its mind and form that opinion before directing affixture. On the facts, the record did not show such prior consideration, and the endorsements did not clearly establish valid service on the assessee. The affixture was therefore held invalid, and the appeals were directed to be heard on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under rule 52(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Rules, 1939, service by affixture could be resorted to only after all the other modes of service had been exhausted. (ii) Whether, on the facts, the affixture of the assessment orders on June 6, 1987 was proper service.

Issue (i): Whether, under rule 52(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Rules, 1939, service by affixture could be resorted to only after all the other modes of service had been exhausted.

Analysis: The rule used the expression that if any or all of the modes mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) was not practicable, service could be made by affixture. That wording was held to be materially different from provisions in other sales tax rules which required that none of the earlier modes should be practicable. On that language, it was sufficient if the assessing authority had resorted to any or all of the ordinary modes and found them not practicable; it was not necessary to exhaust every mode in sequence before invoking affixture.

Conclusion: The assessee's contention that all prior modes had to be exhausted was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, the affixture of the assessment orders on June 6, 1987 was proper service.

Analysis: The deciding factor was whether the assessing authority itself had applied its mind and formed the opinion that service by the ordinary modes was not practicable. The record showed simultaneous resort to several modes, endorsements made by the process-server, and no clear material that the authority itself had considered the matter before directing affixture. The endorsements also did not clearly establish valid service on the assessee as a partnership concern. On these facts, the statutory requirement for valid service by affixture was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The affixture service was held to be invalid and not proper service under the Act and the Rules.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the appellate order rejecting the appeals was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to hear the appeals on merits after their representation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a service rule permits affixture only when the ordinary modes are not practicable, the assessing authority must itself apply its mind and reach that conclusion before directing affixture; service by affixture without such prior exercise of discretion is invalid.

---