M.Thanikachalam, J.: This order shall dispose of the above two writ petitions, since the petitioner is one and the same, except the period of assessment. 2. The petitioner was the proprietor of Vijayalakshmi Blue Metal and the business was carried on at No.54/1, Mettu Edayanpatti, Adunkkanparai Post, Vellore Taluk. The petitioner started his business in Blue Metal elsewhere in the year 1991, but he did not obtain any registration under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, since his turnover was less than Rs.1 lakh. 3. A case study has been conducted at his place of business on 28.4.1992 by the Junior Research Officer (CT), Vellore and the Statistical Inspector (CT), Vellore. On the basis of the case study, after the issue of notice, the petitioner was assessed to tax, for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, imposing penalty also. As per the assessment order, the petitioner has not paid the sales tax, resulting issue of Form-I distraint notice dated 26.2.2001, under the Revenue Recovery Act, demanding the tax and penalty for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, which was received by the petitioner elsewhere in the month of March 2001, since it was addressed to his residential address i.e., No.13, Mettu Edayanpatti, Adunkkanparai Post, Vellore Taluk. 4. On receipt of Form-I distraint notice, when he approached the department, he came to know that the assessment order was sent by registered post to the factory address, which has already been closed down and transferred, which was initiated to the third respondent, while filing objection for the pre-assessment notice on 5.2.1996, where also, the petitioner had contended that he had sold the business to one Sekar due to loss, in the year 1992-93 itself and requested to drop further proceedings. Despite this fact, the petitioner was assessed to tax and by sending the assessment orders to the factory address, where he has no interest, subsequent proceedings had been initiated. 5. The petitioner, after obtaining the certified copy of the assessment order on 21.4.2001, filed the appeal before the 2nd respondent on 30.4.2001. The second respondent refused to entertain the appeal, concluding as if the affixture was done at the business place of the assessee, which is sufficient compliance of Rule 52 and in this view, the appeal is barred by time. 6. The second respondent refused to entertain the appeal, concluding as if the affixture was done at the business place of the assessee, which is sufficient compliance of Rule 52 and in this view, the appeal is barred by time. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed O.P.Nos.577 and 576 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal at Chennai. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions of the parties, as well as considering the effect of Rule 52 of the Act, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had filed the appeals, before the second respondent only after five years and the non entertaining of the appeal by the second respondent, as time barred is based on facts, assigning valid reasons. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal refused to set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, which is under challenge in these two writ petitions. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Ramanathan and the learned Special Government Pleader, (Taxes). 8. The point for determination is whether the assessment orders were properly served, as contemplated under Rule 52 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, if so, whether the appeal is barred by limitation? 9. The petitioner as proprietor of Vijayalakshmi Blue Metal was running a business at door No.54/1, Edayanpatti, Adunkkanparai Post, Vellore Taluk, is not under challenge. According to him, he closed the business due to loss and transferred the interest in favour of one Sekar, even in the year 1992-93 itself which fact was intimated to the third respondent, when the third respondent issued a notice for the assessment, on the basis of case study. In the ordinary course, when the trader has informed that he had closed the business and not carrying on business in the business address originally given, when any proposed assessment is initiated, on the basis of case study, the pre-assessment notice should be sent to the proposed assessee, to his residential address and this procedure was correctly followed by the third respondent, a seen from the records. 10. After receipt of pre-assessment notice, the petitioner had sent a reply dated 5.2.1996, where he has claimed that he closed the business, transferred the interest in favour of the third party. 10. After receipt of pre-assessment notice, the petitioner had sent a reply dated 5.2.1996, where he has claimed that he closed the business, transferred the interest in favour of the third party. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has not participated in the assessment proceedings, which resulted passing of assessment orders by the Deputy Commercial Officer, Vellore on best judgment basis under Sec.12(2) of the Act, for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the fact, the assessing officer knew the address of the petitioner and the fact that he had closed his business, which was intimated to him, failed to serve the assessment orders, as contemplated under Rule 52 and therefore, the assessee was unable to file appeals in time, questioning the assessment orders. It is the further submission of the learned counsel, that the assessee is entitled to file appeals, within the prescribed period, from the date of obtaining certified copies, since no assessment orders were served upon him. 12. Per contra, opposing the above contentions, the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) would contend that the orders were served upon the petitioner, as contemplated under Rule 52(1)(d) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, which is a valid service. It is the further contention of the learned counsel, that knowing the fact that the orders were served by affixture, the petitioner has not preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, within the time prescribed under law and considering these facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Assistant Commissioner, as well as the Tribunal had come to an irrestiable concurrent conclusion, that the appeal is out of time, which requires confirmation. 13. By going through the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vellore, as well as the Tribunal, coupled with Rule 52(1)(d) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules; we are unable to persuade ourselves, that there was valid service in this case, regarding the assessment orders. 14. Indisputably, there was no personal services of the assessment orders. It is the case of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, that the orders were served by affixture, which is also a recognised, as valid service. 14. Indisputably, there was no personal services of the assessment orders. It is the case of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, that the orders were served by affixture, which is also a recognised, as valid service. If the said service had been effected, at the assessee’s last known place of business or residence, as the case may be, we could not find fault, in the service of the orders. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was informed to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, that the petitioner had closed his business, elsewhere in the year 1992-93. Admittedly, pre-assessment notice was served only in the residential address of the assessee via., 113, Mettu Edayanpatti, Adunkkanparai post, Vellore Taluk. For the pre-assessment notice, when the assessee had filed an objection, he informed that he had closed the business and transferred the same to third party. Whether it is factually correct or not, when the matter was informed to the assessing authority, the assessing authority ought to have sent the assessment order, under the Act to his last known place of residence, since it is the definite case of the assessee that he had closed his business, thereby informing the authorities concerned, that he ceased to have any business interest in the premises viz., 54/1 Mettu Edayanpatti, Adunkkanparai Post, Vellore Taluk. It is not the case of the assessing officer that the assessment order was sent to the residential address also, but the assessee wantonly and deliberately refused to receive the same. As per the request made by the assessee in his objection letter dated 5.2.1996, the assessing officer fixed the personal hearing on 25.2.1996 and sent a letter by registered post, with acknowledgment due, to his residential address at door No.113, Mettu Edayanpatti, Adunkkanparai Post, Vellore Taluk. This letter was returned by the postal authorities with the written endorsement “not available”. It appears, thereafter another notice was issued, for the appearance of the petitioner, and there was no response. On that basis, it is submitted, the assessment order was not sent to the residential address, whereas it was sent to the place of business, which should be construed as valid service, as per Rule 52(1)(d) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, which we are unable to agree. 15. As aforementioned, the pre-assessment notice was served only in the residential address, which was responded. 15. As aforementioned, the pre-assessment notice was served only in the residential address, which was responded. It is not known, under what circumstances, subsequent notice sent to the residential address, for the personal hearing, was not served and under what circumstances, it was returned. That alone could not have been taken into consideration, by the assessing officer, for not sending the assessment orders to the residential address, considering the objection dated 5.2.1996, wherein it is said, he had closed the business. If that objection had not been available with the assessing officer, or the petitioner had not informed that he had closed the business, then the assessing officer would be justified in saying that the assessment orders were served, by affixture at his last known place of business. The place of business owned by the petitioner was disowned and informed. The residential address is very well available with the assessing officer. Therefore, in the ordinary course to give an opportunity to the assessee to prefer an appeal, the assessment orders should have been sent to the residence of the assessee and on his failure to receive the same, it should have been served by affixture, at his last known place of residence, not in the place of business, since he had no interest at that time. In the original place of business, the present owner of the business, might have refused to receive the same, since he has no interest in the assessment order. Taking advantage of the fact, that the concerned officer has made an endorsement, that the trader refused to receive the notice, he served the same by affixture. It may not be fair on the part of the assessing authority to claim, that effective service had been done, by affixture. Under the above said circumstances, it cannot be said that there was a valid service of orders, as contemplated under Rule 52(1)(d) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules. 16. The petitioner, after coming to know about the revenue recovery proceedings, approached the assessing officer, explained that he has not received the orders of assessment, then obtained certified copy of the orders on 21.4.2001, filed the appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 30.4.2001. If we calculate the period from the date of certified copy of the assessment orders, the appeals are in time, not disputed. 17. If we calculate the period from the date of certified copy of the assessment orders, the appeals are in time, not disputed. 17. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the firm opinion that there was no proper and valid service upon the petitioner, as far as the assessment orders are concerned and therefore, he is entitled to prefer an appeal, when he came to know about the assessment orders, after obtaining the certified copies, which was done by the assessee in this case properly and the appeals were also filed within the time from the date of receipt of copy of the assessment orders. 18. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as well as the Tribunal, without properly considering the correctness and the validity of service of the orders and the fact that the assessee had transferred the place of business to third party, in our opinion committed an error, as if the assessment orders were served by affixture, and therefore, the appeals filed beyond the period prescribed, from the date of affixture are barred by time, which are liable to be set aside. For the foregoing reasons, both the petitions are allowed, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner is directed to take the appeals on file according to law and dispose of the same on merit. No order as to costs.