Judgment : T. Sunil Chowdary, J. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the assessment proceedings of the first respondent dated 23.8.2012 for the period from 2008-09 to 2011-12 as illegal, contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same. The petitioner company which is a proprietary concern carrying on business in pulses, dalls, vegetable oils and vanaspathi, is a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, the VAT Act). The first respondent issued a notice dated 18.2.2012, stating that the inspection of the petitioner’s books would be held on 01.3.2012, and the petitioner directed to furnish the books of accounts for the period from 01.4.2005 to 01.3.2012. It is pleaded in the writ petition thatinpursuance of the notice dated 18.02.2012, the petitioner’s part time accountant by name M.Prasannanjaneyulu appeared before the second respondent and produced books of accounts. It is alleged that without making any further enquiry and without issuing the mandatory show-cause notice in Form-VAT 305A the 1st respondent has straightaway passed the impugned assessment order dated 23.08.2012 purportedly in exercise of the powers under Rule 25 (5) of the A.P. VAT Rules, 2005. A copy of the said order was served on the petitioner on 28.08.2012 and again by registered post on 3.10.2012. In the said order, it was alleged that though the notice in Form VAT-305A dated 18.7.2012 was issued to the petitioner on 4.8.2012 and was also sent to his e-mail on 6.8.2012 inviting objections to the proposed assessment, the petitioner failed to respond. Assailing the assessment order, dated 23.08.2012, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the show-cause notice dated 18.7.2012 stated to have been issued by the 1st respondent was never received by the petitioner and therefore the impugned assessment order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner underwent Liver operation on 30.03.2012 in Lalitha Superspecialities Hospital (P) Limited, Kothapet, Guntur, and since then he could not run his business. To substantiate the said plea, the petitioner filed along with the writ petition a copy of the Hospital Discharge Summary. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner underwent Liver operation on 30.03.2012 in Lalitha Superspecialities Hospital (P) Limited, Kothapet, Guntur, and since then he could not run his business. To substantiate the said plea, the petitioner filed along with the writ petition a copy of the Hospital Discharge Summary. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.1, it is contended at the outset that the petitioner has got efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under the provisions of the VAT Act to challenge the orders passed by the first respondent and that the petitioner, without availing the remedy of appeal provided under the statute,cannot straightaway invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.It is explained in the counter-affidavit thatbased on the authorisation issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Nellore, the first respondent visited the business premises of the petitioner and requested the accountant of the petitioner, who is present at that time to produce its books for verification. The accountant requested for some time as the petitioner was out of station. The petitioner has not produced books even after lapse of five months. The first respondent issued notice dated 18.7.2012 by registered post acknowledgement due requesting the petitioner to produce its books for verification. The said notice was returned with an endorsement “refuzd reten sender”. Again, another notice dated 25.7.2012 was issued and that was also returned with an endorsement “no such adr returned for want of door No.”. After obtaining necessary authorisation from the Deputy Commissioner on 03.8.2012, in terms of Rule 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for short, the VAT Rules) the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 04.8.2012 by registered post acknowledgement due, proposing to levy tax based on the detailed VAT ledger of the petitioner available with the department. The said notice was also returned unserved with an endorsement “left reten sender”. The show cause notice was also sent to the e-mail address furnished by the petitioner. As there was no response, the first respondent passed the assessment order dated 23.8.2012 which is in accordance with law. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that he was in Uma Diabetic Centre, Vijayawada from 26.7.2012 to 04.8.2012 and therefore question of refusing the alleged notices do not arise and the averment made to that effect is not correct. As there was no response, the first respondent passed the assessment order dated 23.8.2012 which is in accordance with law. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that he was in Uma Diabetic Centre, Vijayawada from 26.7.2012 to 04.8.2012 and therefore question of refusing the alleged notices do not arise and the averment made to that effect is not correct. Heard Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no valid service of notice as provided underRule 64 of the VAT Rules and therefore the impugned order of assessment is vitiated. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M.Adinarayana v CTO, Piduguralla (W.P.No.22972 of 2013, dated 02.8.2013.) wherein it was held that service of notice of assessment should be in conformity with Rule 64 of the VAT Rules, as otherwise the order of assessment thereon is violative of procedure prescribed and vitiates for not providing opportunity of hearing. Rule 64 of A.P. VAT Rules which provides for mode of service of orders and notices reads as under: “64. Rule 64 of A.P. VAT Rules which provides for mode of service of orders and notices reads as under: “64. Mode of Service of orders and notices: 1) Unless otherwise provided in the Act, or these Rules, a notice or other document required or authorized under the Act or these Rules to be served shall be considered as sufficiently served, a) on a person being an individual other than in a representative capacity if- i) it is personally served on that person; or ii) it is left at the person’s usual or last known place of residence or office or business in the State; or iii) it is sent by registered post to such place of residence, office or business, or to the person’s usual or last known address in the State; or b) on any other person if- i) it is personally served on the nominated person; or ii) it is left at the registered office of the person or the person’s address for service of notices under the Act; or iii) it is left at or sent by registered post to any office or place of business of that person in the State; iv) where it is returned un-served, if it is put on board in the office of the local chamber of commerce or traders association. 2) The certificate of service signed by the person serving the notice shall be evidence of the facts stated therein.” As could be seen, a notice sent by registered post to the office or place of business of the dealer is sufficient service both under clause (a) and clause (b) of Rule 64 (1). In the cause-title to the writ petition, the petitioner’s address is described as “D.No.37/87/1, Gajulapalem, Addanki Village & Mandal”. Along with the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.1, the photocopies of the returned envelopes sent by registered post were enclosed and a perusal of the same reveals the following factual aspects: Sl. No. Notice/ order Address written Remarks 1. Notice dated 18.2.2012 requesting the petitioner to produce books of accounts. Sri Venkateswara Trading Co., D.No.37/87/1, Prop: Kothamasu Kasi Vis…, S/o.Subbaiah, Gajulapalem, Addanki V & M, Prakasam District,C/o.D.No.1-42, Main Road, Addanki, Prakasam (Dt.) “Refused. Returned to sender” 2. Notice dated 25.7.2012 reminder for production of books of accounts and to appear on 02.8.2012. No. Notice/ order Address written Remarks 1. Notice dated 18.2.2012 requesting the petitioner to produce books of accounts. Sri Venkateswara Trading Co., D.No.37/87/1, Prop: Kothamasu Kasi Vis…, S/o.Subbaiah, Gajulapalem, Addanki V & M, Prakasam District,C/o.D.No.1-42, Main Road, Addanki, Prakasam (Dt.) “Refused. Returned to sender” 2. Notice dated 25.7.2012 reminder for production of books of accounts and to appear on 02.8.2012. Sri Venkateswara Trading Co., D.No.37/87/1, Prop: Kothamasu Kasi Vis…, S/o.Subbaiah, Gajulapalem, Addanki, Prakasam (Dist.) 523 201. “No such addressee. Returned for want of door No.” 3. Show Cause Notice dated 04.8.2012 prosing to levy tax based on the detailed VAT ledger available with department. Sri Venkateswara Trading Co., D.No.37/87/1, Prop: Kothamasu Kasi Viswanadha Rao, S/o.Subbaiah, Gajulapalem, Addanki V & M, Prakasam District,C/o.D.No.1-42, Main Road, Addanki, Prakasam (Dt.) “Left. Returned to sender” From the above table, it is clear that all the notices were sent to the correct address of the petitioner, as mentioned in the writ petition. As held in C.C.Alavi Haji v Palapetty Muhammed ( (2007) 6 SCC 555 )when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement ‘refused’ or ‘not available in the house’, it is presumed that the notice is served. In the above said decision, it is observed by the Supreme Court: Section 27 of General Clauses Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. In view of the said presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent by a registered post to the address of the drawer, it is unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. This Court has already held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement “refused” or “not available in the house” or “house locked” or “shop closed” or “addressee not in station”, due service has to be presumed. This Court has already held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement “refused” or “not available in the house” or “house locked” or “shop closed” or “addressee not in station”, due service has to be presumed. In the light of the settled legal position and having regard to the facts and circumstances noticed above, we are of the considered view that the first respondent strictly adhered to the procedure contemplated under Rule 64 of the VAT Rules before passing the impugned assessment order. The decision inM. Adinarayana’s case (1 supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts and therefore is in no way helpful to substantiate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioner that the impugned assessment order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the petitioner cannot straightaway invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiawithout resorting to the efficacious alternative remedy available to him under Section 31 of the VAT Act. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that this shall not preclude the petitioner to avail the efficacious alternative remedy of appeal available to him as per law. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.