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 |