R. R. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE assessee is a co-operative society known as M/s. Sahkari Sangh Limited. ( 2 ) THE short question which arises in the present case is as to whether the service of the assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer which was sought to be made by registered post and was in fact served on Km. Beena Chauhan, the daughter of the secretary of the society, is a valid service in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule 77 (4) of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which is relevant for the purpose of service by post reads as follows : 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: (2 ). . . (3 ). . . (4) When service is made by post, an acknowledgment purporting to have been signed by the addressee or his manager, munim, accountant or agent or employee or member of his family, or an endorsement by a postal emyloyee that the addressee or his manager, munim, accountant or agent or employee or member of his family refused to take delivery may be deemed by the concerned authority to be proof of service. . . . ( 4 ) ACCORDING to this Sub-rule, acknowledgment of the registered article sent by post has got to be signed either by the addressee himself or by an agent or an employee or member of his family. ( 5 ) THE argument sought to be raised by the learned standing counsel is that the words "member of his family" take colour from the word "employee" as used in Sub-rule (4) of the aforesaid rule. His contention is that since Km. Beena Chauhan was a member of the family of the employee of the society, therefore the service is a valid service and is in accordance with law and the Tribunal is justified in law in taking the said view. On the other hand, Sri Bharatji Agrawal, learned counsel for the dealer, submits that the said words do not take any colour from the word "employee" occurring earlier in the said Sub-rule and have been used independently. On the other hand, Sri Bharatji Agrawal, learned counsel for the dealer, submits that the said words do not take any colour from the word "employee" occurring earlier in the said Sub-rule and have been used independently. According to the learned counsel for the dealer, if the service by registered post is made on a member of the family of the dealer then service will be in accordance with law. The argument on behalf of the dealer further proceeds that since in the present case the dealer is a registered society, therefore it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that Km. Beena Chauhan, the daughter of the secretary, will be a member of the family of the dealer within the meaning of Sub-rule (4) of rule 77 of the Rules. The learned counsel for the dealer invited my attention to the decision of this Court in the case reported as Radha Mal Mahabir Prasad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1978 uptc 730 and relied upon the interpretation put by this Court in the said case on more or similar provision occurring in Rule 77 (b) of the Rules. That was a case in which the question arose, that when the dealer is a partnership firm, whether service on the son of one of the partners was valid or not. This Court held that before service can be effected on the adult male member of the dealers family, the dealer must be an entity which had a family and this can only be in the case of a natural person. This Court in that case further went on to observe that, therefore, Rule 77 (b)can have no application to other juristic entities and that since a firm is incapable of having a family, as it is not anatural person, the service of notice in such a case was held to be not a valid one. ( 6 ) IN my opinion, the argument advanced on behalf of the dealer has substance. Firstly, it cannot be said that the co-operative society has any family in this case and that service on the daughter of the secretary of the society was a valid one. Secondly, in my opinion; the words "member of his family" used in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 77 of the Rules do not take any colour from the word "employee" as suggested by the learned standing counsel. Secondly, in my opinion; the words "member of his family" used in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 77 of the Rules do not take any colour from the word "employee" as suggested by the learned standing counsel. Consequently, in my opinion, in the present case the service made on the daughter of the secretary of the co-operative society was not a valid service in the eye of law and the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from a manifest error of law. ( 7 ) IN the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed with costs. The order of the Sales Tax tribunal as well as of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) holding that the appeal is barred by time is set aside with directions to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) to hear the appeal on merits. .