S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THIS Special Appeal filed under section 23 (1) of the A. P. G. S. T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as act , for brevity), is directed against the order of the commissioner of Commercial Taxes, andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad dated 4-8-1998. The background facts leading to the filing of this Special Appeal be noted briefly as under: the appellant, M/s. Kanaka Durga wines, Guntur was assessed by the commercial Tax Officer, Brodipet, Guntur for the assessment year 1992-93 under the act on the following turnovers:g. T. O. Rs. 11,95,74,318-00e. T. O. Rs. 10,73,15,959-00n. T. O. Rs. 1,22,58,359-00 ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the above assessment order, the appellant-Dealer preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Guntur, disputing the levy of tax of Rs. 2,11,723. 00 on a turnover of Rs. 10,04,240. 00 relating to the value of bottles amounting to Rs. 8,37,280. 00 and cartons amounting Rs. 1,66,960. 00. The appellate Deputy Commissioner, commercial Taxes, Guntur, allowed the appeal purported to be relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Raj shed s case (74 STC 379 (SC)) opining that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme court in the above case, the disputed sale value of bottles and cartons of rs. 8,37,780/- and Rs. 1,66,960. 00 respectively are to be assessed at the rates of 8. 25% and 7. 15% but not at 29. 15%. The said order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, commercial Taxes, Guntur was revised by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad under section 20 of the Act. The Commissioner of commercial Taxes has opined that the order of the Appellate Deputy commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Guntur is found to be incorrect for the dealers have sold liquor along with the bottles and cartons simultaneously and they have to be assessed at the rate of 25% during the period from 16-12-1992 to 31-3-1993. In view of the said order of the Commissioner, the order passed by the Appellate Deputy commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Guntur, was set aside and the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Brodipet, guntur was restored, by exercising revisional powers under Section 20 of the act. Hence this Special Appeal under section 23 (1) of the Act. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Special g. P. for Taxes. Hence this Special Appeal under section 23 (1) of the Act. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Special g. P. for Taxes. ( 4 ) IN this Special Appeal, the threshold question that is required to be decided is whether the revisional order passed by the commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the respondent herein, dated 4-6-1998 was made in conformity with the principles of natural justice and fair play in action and rule 58 of the A. P. General Sales Tax Rules (for short, the Rules ). If we find that there is infraction of the principles of natural justice and Rule 58 of the Rules, there is no need for us to take up the adjudication of the appeal on merits. In that view of the matter, we proceed to consider the threshold question. ( 5 ) THE appellant is an assessee on the rolls of the respondent. The assessment of the appellant/assessee for the assessment year 1992-93 under the Act was taken up for revision under Section 20 (1) of the Act by the respondent by issuing a show-cause notice dated 1-1-1997. Admittedly, this notice was not served on the appellant-assessee in person. According to the respondent, the notice was served in the mode prescribed in Clause (d) Rule 53 of the Rules i. e. , by affixture. After the respondent passed the revisional order on 4-6-1998, the Commercial Tax Officer passed the consequential order dated 26-8-1998 and that consequential order was served on the assessee in person 10-4-1999 at his present address, Tallapalem village, tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. In the interregnum , admittedly the respondent issued notice dated 12-1-1998 whereby he sought to revise the order of the Appellate deputy Commissioner, not only in respect of Rs. 10,04,240. 00 but also the tax liability determined by the Commercial Tax Officer to an extent of Rs. 13 crores in toto. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the appellant-assessee, this notice was not served on it and was also not served on the Counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellant before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. However, according to the respondent, the second show-cause notice dated 12-1-1998 was served on the appellant by affixture on 22-1-1998 as provided under Clause (d) of rule 58. However, according to the respondent, the second show-cause notice dated 12-1-1998 was served on the appellant by affixture on 22-1-1998 as provided under Clause (d) of rule 58. ( 7 ) IN the premise of these facts, sri S. R. Ashok, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would contend that the impugned order made by the commissioner on 4-6-1998 should be condemned as violative of the principles of natural justice as well as Rule 58 of the rules. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, learned Special g. P. for Taxes would maintain that the procedure contemplated under Rule 58 of the Rules was strictly adhered to by the department and it cannot be said that the impugned revisional order made by the commissioner on 4-6-1998 is in violation of principles of natural justice or Rule 58 of the rules. ( 9 ) RULE 58 of the Rules reads-"58. The service on a dealer of any notices, summons, order or proceedings under the Act or under these Rules, may be effected in any of the following ways; namely- (A) By giving or tendering it to such dealer or his manager or agent; (B) If such dealer or his Manager or his agent is not found, by leaving it at his last known place of business or residence or by giving or tendering it to adult member of his family; or (C) If the address of such dealer is known to the assessing authority, by sending it to him by registered post, and if it is returned unserved, it shall be put in notice board of the office of the assessing authority or the notice board in the office of the local Chamber of Commerce or traders Association, and it shall be deemed that the said notice or summons or proceedings are served on the dealer, and action shall be taken in pursuance thereof accordingly; (D) If any or all the modes aforesaid is not practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence. " ( 10 ) THE mode of service provided under clause (d) of Rule 58 of the Rules can be resorted to only if any or all of the modes prescribed under Clauses (a) to (c) are not practicable. " ( 10 ) THE mode of service provided under clause (d) of Rule 58 of the Rules can be resorted to only if any or all of the modes prescribed under Clauses (a) to (c) are not practicable. Therefore, if the authorities resort to the mode prescribed in Clause (d), the first thing to be shown before the Court is that the other modes prescribed under rule 58 of the Rules, were not practicable and, therefore, the Department was left with no other alternative, but to proceed under Clause (d ). If that is the Rule position, the only thing to be seen in this case is whether the records of the respondents would satisfy the test of non-practicability of the modes envisaged in Clauses (a) to (c) of Rule 58 of the Rules, so as to permit the department to resort to the mode of service by way of affixture. We pointedly asked the learned Special G. P. for Taxes whether anything exists in the records to show that the Commercial Tax Officer (sic. Commissioner) has recorded his satisfaction that none of the modes specified in clauses (a) to (c) of Rule 58 of the Rules were practicable and, therefore, he thought it appropriate to serve the notice on the appellant/assessee by the mode as provided under Clause (d ). The learned special G. P. for Taxes fairly submits that the records secured by him from the department do not show any such satisfaction being recorded by the commercial Tax Officer (sic. Commissioner ). Hence, the resort to clause (d) cannot be sustained. ( 11 ) BE that as it may, the reassessment order passed by the Commissioner on 4-6-1998 is also required to be set at naught for one more reason. In the counter filed on behalf of the Department, not a word is said about the allegations made by the appellant/assessee that the second show-cause notice dated 12-1-1998 proposing to revise the order of the Commercial Tax officer to an extent of Rs. 1. 3 crores tax liability was not served on the appellant. It is also not the case of the respondent that a copy of the said notice was served on the counsel of the appellant/assessee who appeared for the appellant before the appellate Deputy Commissioner. 1. 3 crores tax liability was not served on the appellant. It is also not the case of the respondent that a copy of the said notice was served on the counsel of the appellant/assessee who appeared for the appellant before the appellate Deputy Commissioner. We are satisfied that the respondent-authorities have not taken appropriate steps to serve notice on the appellant in accordance with the modes prescribed in Rule 58. In that view of the matter, we hold that the order made by the Commissioner on 4-6-1998 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and Rule 58 of the Rules. ( 12 ) IN the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow this Appeal and set aside the revisional order made by the commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 4-6-1998. The impugned proceedings shall stand remitted to the respondent with a direction to dispose of the same afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant-assessee to have its say in the matter. It is agreed upon by the parties that the appellant-assessee would file objections to the proposed revision before the end of august, 2001. We grant time till the end of august 2001 to the appellant/assessee to file its objections, if any, to the proposed revision initiated by the Commissioner vide his show-cause notice dated 1-1-1997 as well as 12-1-1998. On such objections being filed, the Commissioner shall consider the same and pass appropriate order after giving opportunity to the appellant- assessee of being heard. In view of the statement made by both sides, there is no need for the respondent to issue fresh show-cause notices to the appellant. No costs.