ORDER A.M. Sapre, J. 1. The short question that falls for consideration in this writ filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is, whether a case for setting aside of an assessment order which according to petitioner were ex parte and without notice to the petitioner is made out ? In other words, the question is whether procedure prescribed for service of notice as contemplated under Rule 63 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, was followed by the department before passing the impugned assessment orders. According to petitioner, it was not followed and hence the impugned assessment must be set aside and fresh de novo assessment be made after giving the petitioner an opportunity. Whereas, the department defend the impugned assessment. 2. Petitioner is a proprietory concern of which one Subhash Kimtee is a proprietor. The petitioner at all relevant time was engaged in the business of sale and purchase of iron goods. It is the case of petitioner that he, i.e., Subhash Kimtee continued with the business up to November 7, 1980 because he secured an employment in the Reserve Bank of India, w.e.f. November 10, 1980 as clerk. 3. The dispute in this petition relates to the periods 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. It is the case of petitioner that in February, 1992 he came to know when he was served with a demand that not only he was assessed ex parte on September 12, 1984 for these years but also reassessed ex parte on December 13, 1990. He, then obtained certified copies and filed three revisions before the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. By three separate but common orders dated April 23, 1992 (annexure P9) these three revisions were dismissed and orders of assessment as also reassessment were upheld. It is against these three orders (annexure P9), the petitioner has filed this writ. 4. The State has in substance defended the aforementioned orders and averred that no case for its setting aside is made out. 5. Heard Shri P.M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. Mukati, learned Government Advocate for respondents. 6. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned assessment/reassessment and the revisionary orders was that all are in fact without jurisdiction and cannot be enforced against the petitioner. 5. Heard Shri P.M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. Mukati, learned Government Advocate for respondents. 6. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned assessment/reassessment and the revisionary orders was that all are in fact without jurisdiction and cannot be enforced against the petitioner. It was urged that in the absence of any notice and non-compliance of Rule 63, the proceedings impugned are rendered bad in law. 7. The State counsel in substance defended the impugned proceedings. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. As a consequence, I am inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings and allow the petition by giving directions as discussed infra. 9. Rule 63 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 which deals with the procedure for issuance of notice and summons alone is relevant for the disposal of this petition. As a consequence, I am inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings and allow the petition by giving directions as discussed infra. 9. Rule 63 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 which deals with the procedure for issuance of notice and summons alone is relevant for the disposal of this petition. The relevant portion of Rule 63 is reproduced verbatim infra : "Rule 63 : Notice and summons.--(1) Notice or summons or order under the Act or any rules made thereunder may be served by any of the following methods : (i) by delivering or tendering to the addressee or his agent, by hand of a copy of the notice or summons or order ; or (ii) by post : Provided that if upon an attempt having been made to serve any such notice or summons or order by any of the abovementioned methods, the sales tax authority is satisfied that the addressee is evading the notice or summons or order or that for any other reason, the notice or summons or order cannot be served by any of the above-mentioned methods, the said authority shall cause such notice or summons or order to be served by affixing a copy of thereof-- (a) if the addressee is a dealer, on some conspicuous part of the dealer's office or the building in which the dealer's office is located, or upon some conspicuous part of any place of the dealer's business last notified by the dealer ; and (b) if the addressee is not a dealer, on some conspicuous part of his residence or office or the building in which his residence or office is located; and such service shall be as effectual as if it had been made on the addressee personally." 10. Perusal of aforequoted rule would show that the rules recognise service of notice, summons or order to be effected by two modes. Sub-rule (1)(i) provides by actual delivery to the addressee or his agent or by post as per Sub-rule (1)(ii). The proviso to Sub-rule (1) then says that if upon an attempt having been made to serve any such notice by two modes, it is noticed by the sales tax authorities that addressee is evading the notice or summons or if for any other reason the notice cannot be served by the methods provided then in that event the notice can be served by affixture. Sub-clause (a) then provides how and where the affixture will be done if the addressee is dealer and Sub-clause (b) provides as to how and where the affixture will be done if the addressee is not the dealer. 11. Reading of proviso in clear terms indicates that the sales tax authorities cannot straight way resort to the mode of service of notice on the addressee by affixture. It also indicates that before affixture can be resorted to, the sales tax authorities have to record reasons of their satisfaction that addressee to whom the notices are sent by two modes prescribed is evading notice or that for one or other reasons, it is not possible to serve addressee with the notice by any of the modes prescribed. In other words, in the absence of any such finding by the sales tax authority, notice served by affixture as per proviso is bad in law and hence has to be ignored. It is not binding on the addressee. 12. If I examine the facts of this case in the light of requirement of Rule 63 (supra) then I find that there is no compliance of Rule 63 while serving a notice to the petitioner. The only discussion that I find in the order of revision (annexure P9) while dealing with this issue is as follows : ewy dj fu/kkZj.k gsrq vafre is'kh fnukad 26-8-85 dh fu;r dh x;h Fkh vkSj Kki fnukad 20-8-85 dks fuokZg fd;k x;k FkkA ewy dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k fnukad 29-8-85 dks ikfjr fd;k x;k og Hkh fnukad 20-9-85 dks pLik }kjk fuokZg fd;k x;kA pwafd ewy dj fu/kkZj.k gsrq lwpuk i= ,oa mudk vkns'k fu;ekuqlkj fuokZg fd;k x;k gS blfy;s iqu% dj fu/kkZj.k dh dk;Zokgh iw.kZr;k oS/kkfud gSA iqu% dj fu/kkZj.k gsrq lwpuk i= fnukad 28-12-90 dks is'kh ds fy;s fnukad 8-12-90 ds pLik dj ds fuokZg fd;k x;kA ijUrq dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gq,A vr% izdj.k esa fnukad 31-12-90 dks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k xk vkSj ;g vkns'k Hkh fnukad 5-2-91 dks fodj fujh{kd }kjk pLik dj ds fuokZg fd;k x;kA bl izdkj iqu% dj fu/kkZj.k gsrq tks dk;Zokgh dh x;h og iw.kZr;k oS/kkfud gSA** 13. The sales tax authority (assessing as well as revisionary) has not recorded any finding much less definite finding as to whether the initial mode of service as provided in Sub-rule (1)(ii) was resorted to and if so, on what dates ? The sales tax authority (assessing as well as revisionary) has not recorded any finding much less definite finding as to whether the initial mode of service as provided in Sub-rule (1)(ii) was resorted to and if so, on what dates ? There is also no finding recording their satisfaction about addressee evading service when sent by ordinary mode. Mere mention that notices served by affixture does not tantamount to service on the addressee much less the service that is required to be made as per Rule 63 ibid. 14. As a consequence of aforesaid discussion, I have to conclude that impugned assessment orders as also reassessment orders were passed ex parte and behind the back of petitioner. In other words, the petitioner did not get an opportunity to participate in assessment proceedings which are subject-matter of this petition for want of notice. These assessment, therefore, cannot be given effect to. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Orders dated December 13, 1990 (annexure P7), December 13, 1990 (annexure P5), August 29, 1985 (annexure P6), order sheets dated August 10, 1988 to March 10, 1992 (annexure P8), orders (collectively) dated April 23, 1992 (annexure P9) are quashed by writ of certiorari. The assessing officer shall make proper assessment in respect of the same period de nova in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has already appeared in this petition, no further notice is now necessary for him to be sent by assessing officer. Since the matter is pending for quite a long time, the petitioner will co-operate with the assessing officer in its early disposal. Let all the assessment proceedings be completed within a period of six months from the date of this order. Petitioner to appear before the concerned assessing officer on December 26, 2000. No costs.