ORDER : D. Ramesh, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: "to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Commercial Tax Officer, Narsapur Circle in passing the assessment order dated 31.05.2016 in A.O. No. 23406 on best judgment assessment basis without there being any iota of evidence and without conducting the audit and verifying the books of account and without issuing the show cause notices and without verifying whether the assessment order can be served on a person other than the petitioner in the absence of there being any authorization, which was approved by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner CT, Vijayawada as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unfair, without authority of law and jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the APVAT Act and Rules 2005 and contrary to the doctrine of principles of natural justice and violative of articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 265 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same..." 2. As per the averments of the Writ Petition, the petitioner is carrying on business in drugs and medicines, established its shop as per the requirements of Shops and Establishments Act and is an assessee on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Narsapur Circle. 3. On authorization of the Deputy Commissioner, a Form 304 notice was issued to the petitioner and at the time of audit, the petitioner was not available in business premises. It was alleged that three notices have been issued to the petitioner for production of books of account and for conduct of audit. The petitioner contended that the audit is supposed to take place in the business premises of the petitioner, but unfortunately it is beyond anybody's imagination that how the books of account can be submitted by the petitioner for the purpose of audit and the same is quite contrary to the audit principles of department. At any rate, the petitioner has denied the alleged notices issued by the respondent authorities on 27.01.2016, 22.02.2016, 22.03.2016. But without following the procedure contemplated as per the Act, by treating the same as deemed service, assessment order has been passed. At any rate, the petitioner has denied the alleged notices issued by the respondent authorities on 27.01.2016, 22.02.2016, 22.03.2016. But without following the procedure contemplated as per the Act, by treating the same as deemed service, assessment order has been passed. Thus, the best judgment assessment order dated 31.05.2016 in TIN 37313091803 seems to have been passed and the same has been served through Registered Post and which is alleged to have been received by a person named N. Vijaya Lakshmi, who has put the seal of the firm, but has not intimated about the order that she has received, to the petitioner concern. Subsequently, she left the job because of her personal problems. As there was demand from the first respondent, the petitioner applied for a certified copy, which was duly supplied to the petitioner, pursuant to which the petitioner has filed an appeal on 28.05.2019 intimating the appellate authority that as he has not received any order, he himself applied for certified copy, upon receipt of the same, he filed the appeal. The same was rejected by the appellate authority, by its order dated 19.07.2019 with the following reasons- "In view of the above, since the appellant failed to prefer an appeal on the original assessment order dated 31.05.2016, which was duly served on 25.07.2016, as confirmed by the AA, such original assessment order has became final and the present appeal filed by the appellant dated 28.05.2019 with delay of 2 years 9 months 4 days, hence, cannot be admitted. Further the appellants have not submitted any valid reasons sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed time of 30 days and condonable time of 30 days of receipt of the original assessment order. Hence, the appeal petition is hereby rejected at admission stage as per the provisions of the Act". 4. Questioning the best judgment assessment order, dated 31.05.2016 and also appeal order in A.O.-ADC 4301, dated 19.07.2019, the present Writ Petition is filed. 5. Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. The main contention of the Writ Petitioner is that the service of notice as contemplated by the rule was not followed by the respondents, whereas rule 63 of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (AP VAT) Rules, 2005 reads as follows: "63. 6. The main contention of the Writ Petitioner is that the service of notice as contemplated by the rule was not followed by the respondents, whereas rule 63 of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (AP VAT) Rules, 2005 reads as follows: "63. Nomination of Responsible person: (1) Every VAT dealer or every TOT dealer registered under the Act, shall nominate a person on Form 560 authorizing him or her to sign any returns or any documents or any statements, and to receive any notices or orders on his behalf. Any returns filed, any statements made and notices or orders received by such nominated person shall be binding on the dealer. (2) Every VAT dealer being a partnership, trust, company, non-resident individual, or resident individual who resides outside the State for more than one tax period shall nominate a person who is a resident in the State for purposes specified in sub-rule (1). (3) The name of the person nominated shall be notified on Form 560 to the Commissioner or Officer authorized by him within the time specified as follows, namely,-(a) in the case of a partnership, trust, company or non-resident individual, in the first tax period in which the partnership, trust, company or individual becomes a VAT dealer; or (b) in the case of a resident individual who resides outside the State, in the first tax period in which the individual resides outside the State. (4) Where a person fails to comply with clause (a) of sub-Rule (3), the Commissioner or Officer authorized shall nominate a person for the purposes specified in sub-rule (1). (5) A person may, by notice in writing to the Commissioner or Officer authorized change the nominated person. (6) The person nominated shall be responsible for any obligation imposed on the partnership, trust, company or individual under the Act." 7. In view of the above rule, it is mandatory that every VAT dealer or every TOT dealer registered under the Act, shall nominate a person in Form 560, authorizing him/her to sign any returns or any documents or any statements, and to receive any notices or orders, on his behalf and such act of nominated person shall be binding on the dealer. Where a person fails to nominate, the Commissioner for Officer authorised shall nominate a person for the purposes specified in sub-rule (1). Where a person fails to nominate, the Commissioner for Officer authorised shall nominate a person for the purposes specified in sub-rule (1). But in the instant case, no such nomination as contemplated under rule 63 was done. 8. Apart from that learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that without giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, as contemplated under Section 53, the respondents have passed the best judgment assessment order. Even according to the respondents, they have sent notices, through subordinates on 19.04.2016, but the dealer was not available in the business premises and again another notice was sent by Registered post on 21.05.2016 which was returned and again another notice was sent on 12.05.2016 through subordinate, which was also returned on the ground that no one is available at the business premises. It appears that when the registered pot sent on 21.05.2016, then the question of sending notices through subordinate on 12.05.2016 i.e. much prior to the return of the second notice, is quite imaginary. That itself shows that the authorities have not chosen to send the notices to the petitioner. At any rate, the statements made by the authorities that no one is available at the business premises is totally contrary and it is not in dispute that the petitioner is carrying on business in the said premises. 9. Section 53 clearly contemplates that the authority shall give the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard. For better appreciation, the same is extracted below- "53. Penalty for failure to declare Tax Due:- (1) Where any dealer has under declared tax, and where it has not been established that fraud or wilful neglect has been committed and where under declared tax is:- (i) less than ten percent of the tax, a penalty shall be imposed at ten percent of such under-declared tax. (ii) more than ten percent of the tax due; a penalty shall be imposed at twenty five percent of such under-declared tax. (2) Where any dealer, prior to the detection by any authority prescribed, voluntarily declares that tax due for a tax period is under declared and he pays the tax due along with interest, no penalty shall be imposed provided that such declaration is made within the time limit and in the manner prescribed. (2) Where any dealer, prior to the detection by any authority prescribed, voluntarily declares that tax due for a tax period is under declared and he pays the tax due along with interest, no penalty shall be imposed provided that such declaration is made within the time limit and in the manner prescribed. (3) Any dealer who has under declared tax, and where it is established that fraud or wilful neglect has been committed he shall be liable to pay penalty equal to the tax under declared; besides being liable for prosecution: Provided that before levying penalty under this Section the authority prescribed shall give the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard." 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that though the authorities have stated that they have issued three notices and passed best judgment assessment order on 31.05.2016, the same was served/received by a person named N. Vijaya Lakshmi, But it is not correct to say that the said order was served on the petitioner more particularly in accordance with rule-63 of VAT Rules, 2005. Only after demand was made by the first respondent, the petitioner came to know about the orders passed by the respondent on 31.05.2016 and then he filed an application for certified copies. It clearly indicates that the authorities have not served the assessment order dated 31.05.2016 to the petitioner and it is in dispute that the order was served on one Vijaya Lakshmi, who is not the authorized person, as per rule 63 of VAT Rules, 2005. 11. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied on the judgment passed in G. Srinivasa Raju and others, Hyderabad Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Somajiguda Circle, Hyderabad and Others APSTJ 81 (2014) page 59, wherein the common High Court (for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh) at Hyderabad held that the service of assessment order on the representative of the assessee, who was not authorised to represent the assessee is not a valid and proper service on the assessee. 12. As per (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 63 of APVAT Rules, 2005 in the case of partnership, trust, company or non-resident individual, the dealer has to nominate authorized person under Form 560 in the name of the Commissioner or Officer authorized by him within the time specified therein. 12. As per (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 63 of APVAT Rules, 2005 in the case of partnership, trust, company or non-resident individual, the dealer has to nominate authorized person under Form 560 in the name of the Commissioner or Officer authorized by him within the time specified therein. In the present case, Rule 63 (3) (a) is not followed and the best judgment assessment order was also not served on the petitioner as per the Rules. Hence, the order passed by the Commercial Tax officer on 31.05.2016 and the rejection of the appeal by the appellate authority on 19.07.2019 is contrary to the provisions of the Act, as well as the VAT Rules, 2005. 13. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondents though not filed counter, argued the matter on instructions. 14. Learned Government Pleader has stated that the best judgment assessment order received by one N. Vijayalakshmi, who is an employee of the petitioner and he has stated that even initially the notices were sent through subordinates, as no one is available on the business premises the authorities have sent notices through registered post and the same were returned. Hence, it should be taken as deemed service as per the General Clauses Act. There is no dispute that the authorities have tried to serve notices on the petitioner as per the Section 53 of the Act as such they have complied the procedure contemplated under the Act. 15. To support his arguments, learned Government Pleader referred rule 64 of A.P. VAT Rules, 2005, which reads as follows:- "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;" 16. Accordingly he contends that in view of the above provision, it is clear that any notice or order served on a person, being an individual other than in representative capacity, if it is served personally, it should be considered as sufficiently served. Further submits that as per the admitted facts, notices were sent through subordinates as well as the registered post, and order was also served on the employee of the petitioner, hence, they have complied with all mandatory provisions contemplated under the Act and the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent is in accordance with the provisions, so also the appeal filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation as per section 31(1) of A.P. VAT Act. Therefore, urged that the rejection of the appeal by the 2nd respondent on 19.07.2019 is in accordance with law. 17. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel, it is to be noted that no doubt the dealer authorities has not authorized any person in Form 560, as contemplated under rule 63 of the A.P. VAT Rules 2005, but it is also to be noted that the notices were physically not served on the petitioner before passing the best judgment assessment order on 31.05.2016. In fact, from the ratio laid down in G. Srinivasa Raju's case referred supra, it is clear that the service of assessment order on the representative of the assessee, who was not authorised to represent the assessee, is not a valid and proper service on the assessee. Accordingly, the service of assessment order in the instant case is not valid and the same is liable to be set aside. 18. In view of the above discussion, the impugned best judgment assessment order, dated 31.05.2016 and the appeal order dated 19.07.2019 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the original authority. The orders passed by the original authority, dated 31.05.2016, be treated as a show cause notice, and the petitioner is directed to submit his explanation within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, with all books and records, upon which the respondents shall consider the said explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as per the rules, and a copy of the order thereof may be served on the petitioner. 19. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 19. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.