Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh


Value Added Tax Act, 1991
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 2

Whether Gemcon Ltd. Company is a construction company or manufacturer or producer.
That it envisages a construction organization but apparently Gemcon Ltd. is neither engaged in construction nor maintenance of buildings, roads, highways and bridges. True it is that it manufactures SPC electric poles which hold electric wires for transporting electricity but such function would not bring it within the ambit of the word Rather, the manufacture of SPC electric poles with cement, sand, stone, iron etc brings the company within the definition of National Board of Revenue & Ors Vs. Lt. Col. Kazi Shahid Ahmed 20 BLT (AD) 89. ....View Full Judgment

Section 2

(VAT) Second Schedule of the Act
Section 2 of মূল্য সংযোজন কর আইন, (VAT) defines the words "manufacturer or "producer" (প্রস্ততকারক বা উৎপাদক) as doing doing certain specific acts of production while the second schedule of the said Act defines the word" নিরমান সংস্থা" doing some Acts in connection with the manufacture or production. Appellant Gemcon is neither engaged in construction nor maintenance of buildings, roads, highways and bridges. Manufacture of SPC electric poles for transporting electricity docs not bring it neither under the ambit of the word " যোগযোগ মাধ্যম" and best it brings it within the definition of "প্রস্ততকারক". In such view of the matter, the appellant is not entitled to the special financial benefit available to the manufacturer or producer. National Board of Revenue and others -Vs- Lt. Col. Kazi Shahid Ahmed (Retd.) 1 ALR (AD)215 ....View Full Judgment

Section 3

read with Rule-31
Whether the joint-venture firm was not liable to pay any VAT under the Act.
Held: Zero VAT can only be levied on the services rendered by the joint-venture firm under the contract in respect of the foreign currency portion of the contract price.
National Board of Revenue Vs. Hyundai Engineering & Construction Company Ltd. & Ors. 8BLT(AD) 85 ....View Full Judgment

Section 3(3)

Section 3(3) of the Act VAT being an indirect tax is to be borne by the consumer or receiver of the service unless the contract otherwise provides.
It is true that section 3(3) of the Act places the burden of the tax upon the service receiver to pay the tax. But the Act does not say that the service renderer can not pass on the tax burden to service receiver. The burden of the tax is temporarily fixed on the service renderer for the facility of tax collection and to prevent tax evasion and is no bar in the service renderer to re-imburse it form the service receiver, who has to bear the burden ultimately.
M/S. A.A. Engineering Ltd. -Vs.- University of Khulna 3 ALR(2014)(1)(AD) 139 ....View Full Judgment

Section 7(1)

read with Finance Act, 1999 Section 7(18)
It appears from the record that the petitioner challenged the imposition of 15% supplementary duty and 4% flood surcharge on t he same on the imported goods as has been fixed by the third schedule under Section 7 of the VAT Act. It also further appears that Section 7 of the VAT Act as amended has authorized the Government to impose supplementary duty and there is nothing on record to show that the imposition of supplementary duty at the rate of 15% as well as the imposition of flood surcharge on the supplementary duty is not authorized by any law or is otherwise bad in the eye of law. The imposition of the supplementary duty under the authority of Section 7 of the VAT Act being an official Act has due sanction of law. M/S. Madina Trading Corp. Vs. Commissioner of Customs &Anr 17 BLT (AD) 298. ....View Full Judgment

Section 9(2ka)/42

The High Court Division observed–
“The present writ petition without preferring any objection/appeal under section 9(2ka)/42 of the VAT Act is not also maintainable.” We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court Division. .....Aftab Auto. Ltd =VS= Customs, Excise & VAT, Tejgaon Circle-1, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 177] ....View Full Judgment

Section 13(3)

A Statute, which takes away or impairs any vested right acquired under existing law, is always deemed to be prospective. The general rule being that without a clear indication from the wordings of a statute, the statute is not to receive retrospective effect. Govt. of Bangladesh Vs. Apex Weaving & Finishing Mills Ltd. 12 BLT (AD)-77 . ....View Full Judgment

Section 42(1)(kha) and 42 (2) (Kha)

Deposit of 25% of demanded VAT or penalty imposed at the time of filing an appeal.
Customs Act,1969(IV of 1969)
Sections 194(1) and 196
It is well - established that all fiscal statutes which deal with taxation contain provisions which are called charging section and others are termed machinery sections. Once the imposition or levy has been incurred, the machinery sections are to be construed and interpreted in a manner which would not defeat a tax. In the instant case, under section 42(1)(kha) of the VAT Act, 1991 the appeal was required to be filed before the Appellate Tribunal construed under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 with deposit of 25% of the demanded VAT. Sunshine Cables and Rubber Works Ltd. -Vs.- NBR 3 ALR(2014)(1)(AD) 177 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 55 and 67

read with
Value Added Tax Rules, 1991
Rule 12 —After submission of the Bank Guarantee supported by an unconditional undertaking by all the directors of the petitioner company against the outstanding VAT liability, the claim for release of the Bank Guarantee is not tenable in law.
The Appellate Division held that it appears that the predecessor of the petitioner company did not raise any objection against the outstanding arrear VAT liability demanded by the respondent authority as contained in Annexure-E1 on the ground of non-compliance of procedure of the VAT Act before making the demand. In the circumstances of the case after submission of the Bank Guarantee No. 101TS1241LG07 dated 07.05.2007 for Tk. 2,75,42,815.02 supported by an unconditional undertaking by all the directors of the petitioner company against the outstanding VAT liability of Tk. 2,75,42,815.02 the claim for release of the Bank Guarantee is not tenable in law. However, the petitioner company can claim refund of any mistaken payment or excessive payment in respect of VAT turn-over tax or any other dues if any to the respondent authority as envisaged in Section 67 of the VAT Act.
Nuvista Pharma Limited -Vs.- The Chairman, National Board of Revenue and others (Civil) 12 ALR (AD) 49-54 ....View Full Judgment

Order of adjudicating authority is appealable —
Writ Petition does not lie without exhausting the remedy of appeal
Since the adjudicating order passed by the Commissioner of Excise, Customs and VAT is an appealable order, the Writ Petition filed without exhausting the remedy of appeal is not maintainable. Messers Chemico Laboratories Ltd. represented by its Chairman -Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretan/ Ministn/ of Finance and others 11 MLR (2006) (AD) 192. ....View Full Judgment