Provisional assessment requires Rule 9B compliance; pending approval alone does not make the assessment provisional.

Pendency of approval of a classification list does not by itself make an assessment provisional unless Rule 9B procedure is followed and the required bond is executed. Non-approval of RT-12 returns carried little weight on the facts. The later authorities relied on the same principle that provisionality cannot be presumed from pending approval alone. On limitation, the demand disclosed a strong prima facie objection, so pre-deposit was dispensed with at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the mere pendency of approval of the classification list and RT-12 returns made the assessments provisional in the absence of compliance with Rule 9B and execution of bond, and whether the appellant had a prima facie case on limitation for dispensing with pre-deposit.

Analysis: The pendency of approval of a classification list by itself does not convert assessments into suo motu provisional assessments unless the procedural requirements of Rule 9B are followed and the requisite bond is executed. The non-approval of RT-12 returns was held to have little bearing in the facts of the case. The later decisions relied upon established that provisionality cannot be presumed merely from pending approval where the statutory procedure was not complied with.

Conclusion: The demand raised was treated as having a strong limitation objection at the prima facie stage, and the condition of pre-deposit was dispensed with in favour of the appellant.

---