JUDGMENT Dr. R. R. Misra, J. - These four revisions have been preferred by the applicant against a consolidated order dated 22nd November 1982 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal for the assessment made under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 196869, 196970 and 197071 and the assessment made under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 197071. The Second Appeals have been dismissed as barred by time on the ground that service of the appellate order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was made on Sri Abdul Wahid who is the brother of Abdul Wahab. 2. The relevant rule regarding mode of service under the U.P. Sales Tax Rules is as under : 77. Modes of service (1) The Service of any notice, summons or order under the Act or the Rules may be effected by any of the following methods, namely (a) by giving or tendering a copy thereof......................... to any adult male member of his family residing with him 3. A perusal of the above rule shows that for service of notice in accordance with Rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, two conditions are to be fulfilled. The first one is that the person so served must be an adult male member of the family of the dealer and the second condition is that he must be a person residing with the dealer. 4. In the present cases, service of all the relevant notices for the said four assessment years has been made on Sri Abdul Wahid brother of Sri Abdul Wahib. The Sales Tax Tribunal has dismissed all the appeals simply on the ground that Sri Abdul Wahid was the brother of Sri Abdul Wahib. It is only on this account that the sales tax Tribunal has taken service to he sufficient under Rule 77 of the said Rules. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I, however, find that there is no material on record to show that the said Sri Abdul Wahid was residing with Sri Abdul Wahib. Therefore, the second condition necessary for effecting service in accordance with law is not satisfied in the present cases. The order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is, therefore, erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, all the four revisions are allowed with costs. Therefore, the second condition necessary for effecting service in accordance with law is not satisfied in the present cases. The order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is, therefore, erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, all the four revisions are allowed with costs. The order dated 22nd November, 1982 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to treat the said appeals within time and hear the same in accordance with law. (Revisions allowed.)