Valid service on assessee requires authority; notice to clearing agent alone cannot extend limitation for demand.

Service of a demand notice on a clearing agent does not constitute valid service on the assessee unless the agent is shown to be authorised to receive notice or contest reassessment on the assessee's behalf. In the absence of such authority, notice served on the assessee after expiry of the statutory six-month period cannot save limitation. The demand was therefore treated as time-barred, and the limitation objection was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand notice, served on the clearing agent before service on the assessee, could be treated as valid service on the assessee so as to keep the demand within limitation.

Analysis: The duty had admittedly been paid on 12-11-1986 and the demand notice was served on the appellants on 14-5-1987. There was no material to show that the clearing agent had been authorised to contest re-assessment or to receive notice on behalf of the assessee. In the absence of such authority, service on the clearing agent could not be treated as service on the assessee. As the notice on the assessee was served after expiry of the statutory period of six months, the demand was time-barred.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was upheld and the demand was held to be barred by time.

---