The Additional Revising Authority, Varanasi, has referred the following two questions for our opinion :

" (a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Judge (Revisions) was justified in considering the service of assessment order on an employee, who had actually no authority, as proper service ?

(b) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Judge (Revisions) was justified in dismissing the revision on the point that no application for condonation of delay had been moved, nor any medical certificate regarding the illness of Sri Mahavir Prasad had been produced ?"

In the assessment year 1963-64, the dealer carried on business in bhang. No regular accounts had been maintained by him and in the assessment proceedings, the dealer pleaded that he had a turnover below the taxable limit and, as such, no tax should be imposed on him. This contention was rejected and a best judgment assessment made, and the turnover fixed at Rs. 22,500. An appeal was filed against this order. The appeal was dismissed as time-barred. Thereafter, a revision was filed by the dealer.

It appears that the appeal was filed by the dealer on 29th April, 1968, showing that the demand notice had been served on 29th March, 1968. It was, however, found that the notice of the assessment order and demand notice had been served on one Jagannath Prasad, an employee of the assessee on 25th March, 1968. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal as time-barred counting the time from the date of service on Jagannath Prasad and on the finding that no good ground existed for condoning the delay. Before the revising authority it was contended that Jagannath Prasad had been dismissed from service and, as such, service of the order on him was not service on the dealer. This plea was not taken note of, as the revising authority was of the view that it was an afterthought. It held that there was nothing on the record to show that Jagannath Prasad was a dismissed employee. The plea of the assessee that the appeal could not be filed within time as he was seriously ill was also rejected. The revising authority upheld the view of the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, that service on Jagannath Prasad, a servant of the dealer, was sufficient service and, in this view of the matter, dismissed the revision.

In order to answer the first question, it is necessary to set out rules 77 and 77-A of the Rules framed under the U. P. Sales Tax Act :

" 77. Modes of service.- The service of any notice, summons or order under the Act or the Rules may be effected in any of the following ways, namely :

(a) by giving or tendering a copy thereof to the dealer or licensee, or his manager or agent; or

(b) if such dealer or licensee or his manager or agent cannot easily be found, by leaving a copy thereof at his last known place of business or residence, or by giving or tendering it to some adult member of his family; or

(c) if the address of such dealer or licensee is known to the Sales Tax Officer, by sending a copy thereof to him by registered post; or

(d) if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixation of a copy thereof in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence.

77-A. Unless otherwise provided in the Act or the Rules thereunder, anything which is by the Act or the Rules required or permitted to be done by a dealer, except when he is required to attend personally for examination on oath or affirmation may be done by a lawyer, an accountant or an authorised agent appointed by the dealer in writing in this behalf; and process served on or notice given to such lawyer, accountant or authorised agent shall be as effectual as if the same had been served on or given to the dealer in person; and all provisions of the Act or the Rules relating to the service of process on or the giving of a notice to a dealer shall be applicable to the service of process on or the giving o