Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD)



Value Added Tax Rules, 1991 (VAT Rules)
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation Head Note Parties Name Reference/Citation
Section-3 (3)

Price declaration–
Objection within 10 days (now 15 days) of receipt of the price declaration, it shall be deemed that the VAT authorities has no objection regarding the price declaration according to sub-rule (3) of rule 3 of the VAT Rules and the appellant is entitled to pay as per price declaration made by it. .....Farzana Steel Mills Ltd =VS= Custom, Excise and VAT & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 250] ....View Full Judgment

Farzana Steel Mills Ltd =VS= Custom, Excise and VAT & others 1 LM (AD) 250
Rule 18(Uma)

Value Added Tax Act, 1991
Sections 15(4), 6(4KaKa) r/w
Value Added Tax Rules, 1991
Rule 18(Uma) r/w
The Telegraph Act, 1885
Section 4 r/w
Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Act
Section 55(3) r/w
Regulatory and Licensing Guidelines for Renewal of Cellular Mobile Phone Operator License (Guidelines, 2011)
The BTRC is given responsibility to collect VAT from the Cellular Mobile Phone Operators and deposited it to the Government exchequer. As such, there is no scope to withhold the VAT collected at source by the Grameenphone.
Government, local authorities, the organization of local authority or organization those who are working for the Government are exempted from payment of VAT. The NBR, postal department, Bangladesh Bank, City Corporation and land revenue authority although engaged in realization of VAT through deduction at source bearing no registration under VAT Act, 1991 and thus the BTRC being Government organization is also exempted from payment of VAT under Clause-7 (Ab¨vb¨ †mev)(N) of the second schedule of the VAT Act, 1991 and compulsory VAT registration is not necessary for BTRC.
“the BTRC’s contained non-registered status for VAT purposes appears anomalous in the facts and circumstances. This Court being of the view that such situation needs immediate attention to avoid any further confusion in the implementation of the Deduction at Source Scheme in particular. It is also noted that the BTRC itself on occasion has contributed to such confusion arising by making ill-advised assertions as to its status within the VAT regime. This Court finds in this respect that circumstances now dictate a compulsory registration of the BTRC by application of Section 15(4) of the Act. Both the NBR and the BTRC are hereby put on notice to ensure such registration by application of Section 15(4) without undue delay. Given the findings in this judgment it is directed that such registration shall be deemed to be effective from the date the BTRC notified the petitioner of award of license and payment of License Renewal Fee and Spectrum Assignment Fees without any deduction i.e. from 17.10.2011.”
-are hereby expunged. .....Grameenphone Ltd. =VS= Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 563] ....View Full Judgment

Grameenphone Ltd. =VS= Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission 14 LM (AD) 563
Rule 31A, 38

VAT Act, 1991
Section 13
VAT Rules, 1991
Rule 31A, 38
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 104
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 wording of a statute, the statute is not to receive retrospective effect– On perusal of the concerned parent act, rules and the aforementioned delegated legislations our considered view is that the Annexure-E(4)is inconsistent with provisions spelled out in the parent Act and Rules. At the same time the impugned explanation is the true and exact expression of what enacted in the parent Act and Rules. In addition, it is a revenue generating issue of the state. Public and higher State interest cannot be defeated for the sake of misleading subordinate legislation and procedural glitches. If these are the situations, as the highest court of the land, Appellate Division opines that this Division should invoke its mandate under article 104 of the Constitution of Bangladesh for doing complete justice for the national interest.
Considering the vagaries of legal proceedings and the technicalities involved in adjudication, Art 104 of the Constitution has invested, as a measure of abundant caution, the last Court of the country with wide power, so it may forestall a failure of justice and do complete justice in an appropriate case. It is an extraordinary procedure for doing justice for completion of or putting an end to a cause or matter pending before this Court. Appellate Division finds that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division do call for interference. In the result, the Civil Petition for Leave Appeal is disposed of. Impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside without any order as to cost. .....National Board of Revenue(NBR), Dhaka =VS= BSRM Steels Ltd., (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 246] ....View Full Judgment

National Board of Revenue(NBR), Dhaka =VS= BSRM Steels Ltd. 13 LM (AD) 246
Rule 31

Value Added Tax Act, 1991
Sections 3(2), 56
Value Added Tax Rules, 1991
Rule 31
Encashment certificate cannot be treated as proceed realization certificate–– Transactions the respondent-writ petitioners as a local supplier supplied the construction materials to the local contractors on receipt of foreign currencies locally as per instructions of the locally floated tender. The goods were not shipped abroad against master Letter of Credit or any internationally accepted export documents. Consequently, the respondents failed to submit any proceed realization certificates against the claimed ‘deemed export’. Mere encashment certificate cannot be treated as proceed realization certificate. ––Observation of the High Court Division:
“We have already indicated that ‘deemed export’ is not an actual export. There is no L/C nor the goods go out of the country. Therefore, in case of ‘deemed export’ there cannot be export proceeds realisation certificate and they would be replaced by encashment certificate and that has been furnished in the instant case both to the respondents before filing of the writ petition and also before this Court as annexures.
It, therefore, appears to us that the transactions in question qualifies as ‘deemed export’ and they have fulfilled the requirements of repatriation of the sale proceeds through Bangladesh Bank.”
The judgment and order dated 17.08.2004 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.4132 of 2002 is hereby set-aside. ––The appellants VAT authority can make demand for the evaded VAT amount and cancel the rebate illegally availed by the writ-petitioners. .....National Board of Revenue(NBR) =VS= Rahim Steels Mills Co.(Pvt) Ltd., (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 539] ....View Full Judgment

National Board of Revenue(NBR) =VS= Rahim Steels Mills Co.(Pvt) Ltd. 14 LM (AD) 539