https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127479 Mandatory service under rule 44 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules required personal delivery, tender to an authorised recipient, or post, and substituted service by affixation was permissible only after those methods failed and the authority directed affixation. The text states that mere attempted service on the assessee and his pleader, without compliance with those preconditions, was insufficient to constitute valid service. As a result, the forty-five-day limitation period under section 24(2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act did not commence from the alleged service, and the finding of limitation was held erroneous. en-us Wed, 25 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:59:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127479 Mandatory service under rule 44 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules required personal delivery, tender to an authorised recipient, or post, and substituted service by affixation was permissible only after those methods failed and the authority directed affixation. The text states that mere attempted service on the assessee and his pleader, without compliance with those preconditions, was insufficient to constitute valid service. As a result, the forty-five-day limitation period under section 24(2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act did not commence from the alleged service, and the finding of limitation was held erroneous. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 25 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127479