- (1.) THIS revision has been filed against a decision of the learned Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer dated 4. 2. 59 in a proceeding under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act. The only and the most important point which has been posed before us for a decision in whether the Assistant Commissioner, Excise & Taxation, to whom the dispute was referred back for examining the various contentions raised by the applicant, acted in accordance with the provision of sec. 8 (iii) of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952. It was pointed out that the Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Taxation issued notice to the applicant on 17. 6. 56 calling upon the applicant to show cause why the amount in question should not be recovered from him under the Public Demands Recovery Act. On the back of this notice the process-server reported on 9. 7. 56 that the defaulter Khajan Singh was not found at his place of residence, that he had gone to some other place and it was not sure as to when he will come back. It is not clear how this notice reached the hands of the Inspector concerned, but according to the statement made by the learned Government Advocate himself, he (the Inspector) took the process far effective service on the defaulter. The said Inspector reported on the back of the notice that he showed the notice to the defaulter, who refused to accept it. It was also noted thereon that the refusal to accept the said notice was made in the presence of two persons whose signatures appear to have been obtained under the said report. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that this process was never brought by the Inspector to his client and that the endorsement on the back of the notice was not made in accordance with the provisions of law in this behalf. In the circumstances, it was urged that as there was no proper and effective service according to law on his client, the order of the learned Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, revalidating the demand was bad in law as the same was without hearing the applicant. We are satisfied that this contention is bound to prevail. According to sec. 8 (iii) of the Public Demand Recovery Act such an Officer or authority (to whom the petition presented to the Collector was sent) shall hear and determine the petition. The word 'hear' pre-supposes a legal hearing. A hearing is possible only when a party is duly informed of the proceeding against him and the process in duly served on him. In the present case, as already observed above, there had no effective service and if an order was given inspite of this, it cannot be maintained. The learned counsel for the Department, however, urged that there were no specific rules regarding issue and service of process under the Public Demands Recovery Act. THIS may be correct. But in the absence of any such rules, the provisions of the general law of the land, namely the Civil Procedure Code must be scrupulously followed. THIS being so, we are of the opinion that as the Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Taxation failed to observe the procedure prescribed by law, his order deserves to be vacated. In result, we allow the application, direct that the case be sent back to the Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, for giving hearing to the applicant in accordance with law and proceed in the matter according to law. The subsequent proceedings conducted in the courts of the Collector and the Commissioner will, in the circumstances, stand quashed. .;