Provisional tax assessment remains enforceable in civil fiscal proceedings, and double jeopardy does not bar adjustment against final liability.

Provisional assessment under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as legally permissible within the statutory scheme, and a demand raised on that basis remained enforceable even though a final return and regular assessment process were available, because provisional tax payments could be adjusted against the final liability. The double jeopardy objection was rejected as inapplicable to civil fiscal proceedings, and hardship to the dealer did not invalidate the demand process. Earlier writ orders were found not to have laid down a binding rule against provisional assessment, so they did not create a right to identical relief on consistency grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a provisional assessment order and the demand raised under it under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be enforced notwithstanding the availability of a statutory appeal and the filing of a regular return; (ii) whether the levy of demand first on a provisional basis and later on regular assessment amounted to double jeopardy; (iii) whether earlier writ orders required similar relief on principles of consistency.

Issue (i): whether a provisional assessment order and the demand raised under it under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be enforced notwithstanding the availability of a statutory appeal and the filing of a regular return.

Analysis: Provisional assessment was held to be permissible under the statutory scheme, including on monthly and annual returns, and such an order was also appealable. The demand raised pursuant to a provisional assessment was not treated as redundant merely because the assessment year had ended, since tax paid provisionally remained adjustable against the final assessment. The absence of a pleaded regular return date and the availability of statutory remedies weighed against interference.

Conclusion: The provisional assessment and the demand based on it were held to be legally enforceable, and no writ interference was warranted on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether the levy of demand first on a provisional basis and later on regular assessment amounted to double jeopardy.

Analysis: The plea was rejected because double jeopardy has no application to civil fiscal proceedings of this nature. The authority was acting within the statutory framework, and inconvenience or hardship to the dealer did not render the action illegal.

Conclusion: The plea of double jeopardy was rejected and the demand process was held not to be barred on that ground.

Issue (iii): whether earlier writ orders required similar relief on principles of consistency.

Analysis: The earlier orders were found not to have decided any legal question invalidating provisional assessment orders. They reflected discretionary relief on particular facts and did not lay down a binding rule of law. Therefore, they did not compel identical relief in the present case.

Conclusion: No relief could be claimed as a matter of legal consistency from the earlier orders.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the impugned provisional assessment process was held to be within the statutory scheme, the double jeopardy objection was unsustainable, and the earlier orders did not create any enforceable legal entitlement to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A provisional assessment demand under the fiscal statute remains enforceable and adjustable against the final assessment, and the doctrine of double jeopardy does not apply to such civil tax proceedings.

---