By this common judgment and order I propose to dispose of 5 (five) writ petitions registered as Civil Rule Nos. 215, 216, 218, 219 and of 1987. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows : The writ petitioner in all the 5 (five) writ petitions is a company registered under the Companies Act and'the owner of tea estates involved in the above writ petitions known as Burtoll Tea Estates, Dewan Group of Tea Estate, Kalaine Tea Estate. The grievance of the writ petitioner is against the notice, which has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petitions issued under the provisions of the Assam Land Revenue and Rent (Surcharge) Act, 1970, for short as the Act' and Rules framed thereunder. By the said impugned notices, the owner of the tea estates was asked to pay the surcharge under the Act together for the years from 1972-1983 as disclosed in the impugned notices. 3. Heard Mr. JP Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. AC Buragohain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. 4. Mr. Bhattacharjee has drawn the attention of this Court to clause (1) and (6) of section 2 and sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act. The provisions of said sections are quoted below : "2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context cthewise requires- (1) 'Land revenue' means any revenue assessed by the State Government on an estate and includes any tax assessed in lieu of land revenue' (6) 'Person' means an individual, a family including a joint family, a partnership, a company, and a body corporate 3. Levy of surcharge.- Every person holding land measuring 10 (ten) bighas or more directly under the State Government shall be liable to pay a surcharge on land revenue or rent, as the case may be,at the fate of 30 per cent of the land revenue or, rent of all dashes of holding" in addition to the land revenue of the rent payable by him. 4. 4. Provisional assessment of surcharge and issue of notice.- After, making such enquiry; if any, as he considers nccessary, the Sub-Deputy Collector or where the lands are situate in more than one circle, the Sub-Deputy Collector of any of those circles as may be determined by rules made Under this Act, shall provisionally assess the surcharge payable by a person and shall cause a notice to be served on the person or persons concerned specifying the amount of surcharge so assessed, in the manner prescribed. 5. Objections and assessmenti The assessee may,within thirty days of the date of service of such notice, file objections to the Sub-Deputy Collector making the assessment, who after giving an opportunity for hearing shall make assessment. ". 5. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, notices in question are-defective for in asmuch as the said notices were served on the Managers ef the tea j estates and not on the company as required under clause (6) of section,2 and sections 3 and 4 of the Act and-also section 2 (15) and section 51 of the Companies Act, 1956. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, the Manager of the | tea estate is not a person under the Act as defined in clause (6) of section 2 of the Act and as such the said notices are defective. The learned counsel for the; petitioner has urged as the notices were defective, the entire proceedings are liable to be struck off for want of jurisdiction. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Burqgohaip, learned Govt. Advocate has urged that the Managers of the tea estates being the legal representatives "of the company are quite competent to accept the notices and on this ground the proceedings can not be quashed. The learned counsel further .has drawn my attention that by filing objections the Managers of the tea estates submitted to the jurisdiction of the concerned .authority. Further according to the learned Govt. Advocate the procedural technicalities .should not be a bar for collecting revenue by the State. 7. There is no dispute that all the 5 (five) tea estates are owned by the company. The Companies Act provide-the manner of issuing'notices on a company. Clause(15) of section 2 of the said Act defines document which includes summon, notices etc. and according to section 51 of the said Act such document may be served on a company or an officer thfereof by sending it. The Companies Act provide-the manner of issuing'notices on a company. Clause(15) of section 2 of the said Act defines document which includes summon, notices etc. and according to section 51 of the said Act such document may be served on a company or an officer thfereof by sending it. to the company or officer at the registered office of the company by post underr a certificate of posting or by registered post or by leaving It at its registered office. " In die case in hand, this procedure was not followed. So there was no proper service of the notice on the writ company who if the owner of all the tea estates. 8. Section 4 of the Act it is absolutely clear that notice has to be served on the person as defined in clause (6) 'of section 2 of the Act. That apart in sub-rufe (4) of Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the Act namely the Assam Land Revenue and Rent (Surcharge) Rules, 1973, it is clearly provided that the Sub-Deputy Collector shall inform all assessees individually by notice in prescribed Form B stating the total amount of surcharge levied upon him and showing the total area on which the assessment has been made arid also shall give opportunity to the assessee to file objection, if any, against such levy within 30 days of service of notice. On perusal of the Rule 10 of Rules it is clear that the notice has to be served on the person who is liable to be assessed. In the case in hand, any amount assessed has to be paid by the company and not by the Manager. So notice has to be served keeping in view of the above provision of the Act, on the company and 'not on tne Manager. From reading above provisions of the Act and Rules framed there under, I hold that before taking any action under the Act notice has to be properly served, otherwise the assessing authority shall not get the jurisdiction and as a result; all subsequent actions wjll be void. In other words, the service of notice is a condition precedent. 9. As in all the cases the notices were not properly served, the Sub-Deputy Collector has no jurisdiction to proceed and as such the assessments are liable to be quashed on this ground. The submission of the learned Govt. In other words, the service of notice is a condition precedent. 9. As in all the cases the notices were not properly served, the Sub-Deputy Collector has no jurisdiction to proceed and as such the assessments are liable to be quashed on this ground. The submission of the learned Govt. Advocate that this is only a procedural matter is not tenablein as much as the law is well settled that in such types of cases the procedure has to be strictly followed . 10. The second point urged by Mr. Bhattacharjee is that the impugned notices were issued without following the procedure laid down in sections 3 and 4 of the Act. On perusal of the notice, it is absolutely clear that no opportunity was given to the writ petitioner to show cause. That apart, the impugned notices are vague inasmuch as the area of the land, the land revenue payable and other particulars were not supplied, thereby depriving the writ petitioner from filing a proper objection. So the impugned notices are liable to be struck down fpr violation of principle of natural justice as faid down in sections 4 and 5 of the Act. 11 I find from the notices that for all the assessment years one demand notice was issued in each case which on perssual of the Act is not envisaged by legislature. For every assessment year a separate assessment hase to be made after following the procedure laid down in tbe Act. 12. The Act in question came into force on 1.10.72 and Rules were framed on 30.2.73 and published on 21.7.73. From the notices, I find that the surcharge was imposed under the Act for the entire revenue year of 1972. Sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Act provides that the Act would come into force on such date as the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette appoint. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee by notification the Act was brought into force with effect from 1.10.72. The provision of the Act is very clear that no retrospective effect of the Act was given and accordingly surcharge cannot be levied for the land revenue which was payable prior to 1.10.72. So, for the revenue year 1972-73 surcharge shall be levied only with effect from 1.10.72, and to that extent the authority shall have to re-calculate the amount. 13. So, for the revenue year 1972-73 surcharge shall be levied only with effect from 1.10.72, and to that extent the authority shall have to re-calculate the amount. 13. For what has been stated above, all the writ petitions have got force and accordingly accepted. In the result, the Rules are made absolute and the impugned notices by which the assessment was made are quashed. It is needless to say that the concerned authority can proceed afresh under the provisions of the A t and the Rules made thereunder. But this observation shall not prevent the writ petitioner to approach this Court again if there is any illegality and infirmity in the process and if any fresh assessment is made in violation of law. No costs.