Provisional assessment and valuation charges need proper factual verification before limitation and assessable value can be decided.

The article states that demand could not be sustained without first determining whether the RT-12 returns were provisionally assessed, because limitation depended on proper factual verification of provisionality; that issue was remanded for fresh adjudication. It also notes that the valuation findings were inadequate: freight, insurance, octroi and unloading at the buyers' premises were treated as not includible in assessable value, while loading and dharat required further examination because the record did not clearly establish their nature. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter sent back for de novo decision after hearing the appellant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand was barred by limitation in view of the plea that the relevant RT 12 returns were provisionally assessed; (ii) whether freight, insurance, octroi, unloading charges, loading and dharat were includible in the assessable value.

Issue (i): Whether the demand was barred by limitation in view of the plea that the relevant RT 12 returns were provisionally assessed.

Analysis: The orders below did not adequately examine whether the assessments were provisional. One order proceeded on the footing of provisional assessment, another invoked the proviso to section 11A without recording a clear finding on provisionality, and the appellate order also failed to address the issue. The question required proper factual verification and consideration.

Conclusion: The limitation issue was not finally decided and required fresh adjudication.

Issue (ii): Whether freight, insurance, octroi, unloading charges, loading and dharat were includible in the assessable value.

Analysis: The finding on valuation was held to be casual and inadequate. Freight, insurance, octroi and unloading at the buyers' premises were treated as not includible in assessable value, while loading and dharat required further factual examination because the record did not explain the exact nature of dharat.

Conclusion: The valuation issue was set aside for reconsideration on the relevant facts.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for de novo decision after verification of facts and hearing the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand and valuation order cannot stand where the authority fails to determine provisional assessment and limitation issues on the basis of proper facts, and where the valuation findings are recorded without adequate examination of the nature of the charges.

---