Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD)
VAT Act, 1991 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 6(4) |
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. .....Grameenphone Ltd & ors Vs. BTRC & Ors, (Civil), 19 SCOB [2024] AD 96 ....View Full Judgment |
Grameenphone Ltd & ors Vs. BTRC & Ors | 19 SCOB [2024] AD 96 |
Clause-7 (অন্যান্য সেবা)(ঘ) of the second schedule |
Compulsory VAT registration is not necessary for BTRC: 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. .....Grameenphone Ltd & ors Vs. BTRC & Ors, (Civil), 19 SCOB [2024] AD 96 ....View Full Judgment |
Grameenphone Ltd & ors Vs. BTRC & Ors | 19 SCOB [2024] AD 96 |
Section 9(1)(Uma) |
VAT paid by the cellular mobile companies on the spectrum fees and the
license fees are not rebatable:
|
Grameenphone Ltd & ors Vs. BTRC & Ors | 19 SCOB [2024] AD 96 |
Section 37(2), 55(1) |
The impugned demand notice dated 13.04.2008 under Section 55(1) was issued without any prior show cause notice to the writ-petitioner as contemplated in Section 55(3) of the VAT Act. The learned Counsel argued next that no penal action for evasion of VAT could be taken under Section 37(2) of the VAT Act before final demand is established in accordance with Section 55 of the VAT Act and in the case in hand no final demand had been established in accordance with Section 55 of the VAT Act, therefore the show cause notice dated 13.04.2008 under Section 37(2) of the VAT Act is liable to be declared to be illegal and is of no legal effect. —The facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and order dated 02.01.2011, so far as it relates to the notice dated 13.04.2008 issued under Section 37(2) of the VAT Act warrants interference by this Division and accordingly, the Civil Appeal deserves to be allowed in part. .....Commissioner of Customs =VS= United Plastic Work Industries, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 43] ....View Full Judgment |
Commissioner of Customs =VS= United Plastic Work Industries | 16 LM (AD) 43 |
Section 42 |
VAT Act, 1991
|
Customs Excise & VAT Commissionerate =VS= Syed Nurul | 16 LM (AD) 512 |
Section 42(1)(Ka), 42(2)(Ka) |
VAT Act, 1991
|
Customs Excise & VAT Commissionerate =VS= Syed Nurul | 16 LM (AD) 512 |
Section 55(1), 37(2) |
Issue a fresh notice under Section 55(1) of the VAT Act, 1991— Appellate
Division is of the view that the notice dated 13.04.2008 issued by the
writ-respondent No.1- appellant No.1 under Section 55(1) of the VAT Act,
1991 is unwarranted and without jurisdiction and as such the same is
liable to be scraped. In this regard, the High court Division did not
commit any illegality declaring the said notice under Section 55(1)
unlawful. —It is apparent from the record that the writ-respondent No.1-
appellant No.1 issued another notice to the writ-petitioner on the same
date i.e., 13.04.2008 to show cause as to why penal action should not be
taken against the writ-petitioner under Section 37(2) of the VAT Act,
1991.
|
Commissioner of Customs =VS= United Plastic Work Industries | 16 LM (AD) 43 |