ORDER K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY and YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ. - The question raised in these cases is as to the validity of the notice served for reassessment of the escaped turnover of the respondents-dealers. The notice was not served by post or personally on the dealer, which is the partnership firm in every case. In Civil Appeal No. 479 of 1979 where the main arguments were addressed, the notice was served on N. A. Merchant who was the Manager of the firm. Upon that service the counsel instructed by the dealer along with N. A. Merchant appeared before the assessment officer and raised objection as to the validity of the notice. It was contended that there was no notice served on the dealer as required by law. However, the assessment officer proceeded to make an order of reassessment. This reassessment order was confirmed by the appellate authority reducing the quantum of suppressed sales. The revision filed against the appellate order was also dismissed but on further reducing the quantum of suppressed sales. The second appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Tribunal. Upon a reference application made by the dealer the Tribunal drew a statement of the case with certain questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's judgment and referred to the Bombay High Court. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are relevant and read as follows : "Question No. 2 : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the notice under section 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, served on Mr. N. A. Merchant, an employee of the concern was a valid service in law ? Question No. 3 : Whether on a true and correct interpretation of section 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessment proceedings were valid in law, though the notice under the said section 15 was served on Mr. Merchant, an employee of the concern, and not on the dealer ?" The High Court answered question No. 2 in the negative and consequently question No. 3 was also answered in the negative. Merchant, an employee of the concern, and not on the dealer ?" The High Court answered question No. 2 in the negative and consequently question No. 3 was also answered in the negative. The High Court has held that the notice served on N. A. Merchant was not valid and he was not proved to be an agent as defined under rule 2(i) of the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954. The High Court expressed the view that service of notice on the dealer or agent as required under section 15(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, read with rules 2(1) and 47 of the Rules is a condition precedent to acquire jurisdiction by the authority for the purpose of reassessment and a wrong service of the notice would invalidate the proceedings and confers no jurisdiction on the authority to initiate the proceeding for reassessment. Section 15(1) read with the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954, provide for service of notice and power to reassess, the escaped turnover under the 1953 Act. Rule 47 of the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954, so far as relevant reads : "47. Notices. - (1) Notices under the Act or any rules made thereunder may be served by any of the following methods : (i) by delivery to the addressee or his agent, by hand of a copy of the notice; (ii) by post ......." Rule 2(i) of the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954, provides : "2(i) 'agent' means a person authorised in writing under clause (a) or (c) of section 43 to appear on behalf of a dealer or other person before any sales tax authority." The 1953 Act has been repealed by the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Section 35 of the 1959 Act provides for reassessment and giving an opportunity to the dealer. The provisions of section 35 are structurally different from the provisions of section 15(1) of the 1953 Act. Under the 1959 Act what is required is that the dealer must be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and there is no requirement of service of notice as contemplated under the 1953 Act and the rules framed thereunder. The question of law raised in these appeals is, therefore, sterile and cannot arise under the 1959 Act. Indeed, it has no general importance and become academic. This Court seldom determines such question. The question of law raised in these appeals is, therefore, sterile and cannot arise under the 1959 Act. Indeed, it has no general importance and become academic. This Court seldom determines such question. We, therefore, express no opinion on the question of law raised in these cases. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.