https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151350 Service of an assessment order and demand notice on a dealer's employee was not valid where the employee was not shown to be an authorised agent or person managing the business under Rule 77. The court distinguished a servant from an agent: mere employment does not establish authority to receive notice on the dealer's behalf, and service on a servant cannot be treated as service on an agent. Because agency was not proved, the alternative service argument under Rule 77-A did not arise for decision. Service was therefore held invalid against the dealer, and the assessee succeeded on the service issue. en-us Thu, 26 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Jun 2013 18:08:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151350 Service of an assessment order and demand notice on a dealer's employee was not valid where the employee was not shown to be an authorised agent or person managing the business under Rule 77. The court distinguished a servant from an agent: mere employment does not establish authority to receive notice on the dealer's behalf, and service on a servant cannot be treated as service on an agent. Because agency was not proved, the alternative service argument under Rule 77-A did not arise for decision. Service was therefore held invalid against the dealer, and the assessee succeeded on the service issue. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 26 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151350