Judgment :- 1 .These Writ Petitions have been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in Roc.No.A3/1023/2002-TNGST No.6201145, dated 11.01.2005, demanding arrears of tax and penalty relating to the assessment years 1998-1999 and 2001-2002 and quash the same. 2. According to the petitioner, it is a firm, engaged in the manufacture of iron castings at Coimbatore; it is an assessee on the file of the respondent; due to heavy debts and confronted with labour problem, it closed down its business activities since February,2002; on account of workers negligence to attend the duties, dharna and indifferent attitude in discharging the service, production was very slow and it could not cope with the production schedule, thereby losing several valuable customers in the market; owing to heavy debts, the Bank of Nova Scotia has taken possession of the properties on 07.02.2003; the respondent is well aware that the firm is locked out; therefore, the respondent ought to have issued notices and assessment orders to the partners residential address and, hence, the service is not made as contemplated under Rule 52 (1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules,1959. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that it received the impugned demand notice, dated 11.01.2005, demanding arrears of tax relating to the assessment year 1998-1999 amounting to Rs.2,62,840/- and to the assessment year 2001-2002 a sum of Rs.4,19,044/-, from the office of the respondent; only on receipt of the demand notice, it came to know that there was an order of assessment and because of the improper service of the assessment order by the respondent, it has lost appeal remedy, as it was time barred and, as such, he could not pursue the matter before the appellate authority to stave off the situation. 4. The one and only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that service of notice is not made as contemplated under Rule 52 (1) of the Tamil Nadu General Salex Tax Rules,1959. 5. Let us see what Rule 52 (1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules,1959, contemplates : "Rule 52 (1). 4. The one and only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that service of notice is not made as contemplated under Rule 52 (1) of the Tamil Nadu General Salex Tax Rules,1959. 5. Let us see what Rule 52 (1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules,1959, contemplates : "Rule 52 (1). Service of notices – The service on a dealer of any notice, summons or order under the Act or 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 or the legal practitioner appointed to represent him or to his authorised representative ; Explanation.- Endorsement by person who delivers the notice, etc., of having tendered or given it will be proof for the purpose of this sub-rule. (b) if such dealer or his manager or agent or the legal practitioner appointed to represent him, or his authorised representative is not found, by giving or tendering it to any adult member of his family; (c) if the address of such dealer is known to the assessing authority, by sending it to him by registered post; or (d) if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence." 6. From the records produced by the learned Government Advocate, it is seen that prior to the impugned notice dated 11.01.2005, for the year 1998-1999, a pre-assessment notice was served on the petitioner on 05.01.2004 and, for the year 2001-2002, another pre-assessment notice was served on the petitioner on 03.02.2003, by way of affixtures at the business premises, as the petitioner firm was closed on account of lock out, calling for objections, if any, to the tax proposals. A notice was also served on the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due at the last known address, but the same was returned on 07.03.2003, with an endorsement company lock out. Hence, notice was served by way of an affixture again on 10.03.2003, but the petitioner had not filed any objections. In the absence of any objections from the petitioner, the respondent had confirmed the proposal and finally assessed the petitioner to tax, by passing final orders on 23.02.2004 and 30.05.2003, which were served on 28.02.2004 and 07.06.2003 respectively, by way of affixtures. In the absence of any objections from the petitioner, the respondent had confirmed the proposal and finally assessed the petitioner to tax, by passing final orders on 23.02.2004 and 30.05.2003, which were served on 28.02.2004 and 07.06.2003 respectively, by way of affixtures. Even against the said orders, the petitioner had an appellate remedy before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore, which was not availed of, and the said orders attained finality. So, there was proper service, as contemplated under Rule 52 (1). 7. Yet other futile contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the firm was in lock out, the notices ought to have been served at the partners residential address. 8. In this connection, it is to be stated, that, no where, either in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act or in the Rules, service of notices at the residential address is mandated. If the address of the dealer is known to the assessing authority, the mode of service would be registered post or if none of the modes is practicable, the affixture in some conspicuous place at the last known place of business or residence is the proper mode of service. In this case, after passing of the final orders, the same were served on the assessee on 28.02.2004 and 07.06.2003 respectively by way of affixtures. Therefore, service of notices was done by following Rule 52 (1) (c) and (d), which could be sufficient service and I do not find any infirmity in the mode of service. As such, the Writ Petitions fail and stand dismissed. 9. Interim stay of the impugned order was granted by this Court on 20.01.2005, subject to the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.3,63,854/-in two equal instalments of six weeks duration each and, pursuant to that, it was represented to the Court on 18.07.2006 that the said amount had been paid. Hence, it is open to the respondent to recover the balance amount, as demanded in the order impugned in these Writ Petitions, and the petitioner is granted a months time from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order, to pay the said amount. 10. In the result, the Writ Petitions are dismissed with the above directions and observations. No costs.