Valid service of assessment order requires proof of authority; delivery to an unauthorised third person is ineffective.

Service of an assessment order on a third person is not valid service on the assessee unless that person is proved to be authorised to receive it on the assessee's behalf. The department bears the burden of establishing valid service on the assessee or on a duly authorised agent. Mere later transmission of the order by a partner to the assessee did not prove prior authority to accept service. On the facts, service was held to have occurred on 22 May 1966, not 19 May 1966, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment order was served on the assessee on 19 May 1966 or on 22 May 1966, and whether service on a partner who had no proved authority to receive it could be treated as valid service on the assessee.

Analysis: The relevant date of service depended on whether the person on whom the order was first delivered was authorised by the assessee to receive it. The burden lay on the department to establish valid service either on the assessee himself or on a duly authorised agent. Mere subsequent transmission of the assessment order by the partner to the assessee did not prove prior authority to accept service on the assessee's behalf. In the absence of evidence of such authority, the earlier delivery could not be treated as service on the assessee.

Conclusion: The service of the assessment order was on 22 May 1966 and not on 19 May 1966, and the question was answered in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Service of an assessment notice on a third person is not valid service on the assessee unless that person is shown to have been authorised to receive it on the assessee's behalf.

---