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

VAT Act, 1991
Sections 26(4), 37, 40(b)(i), 71AA
VAT Rules, 1991
Rule 3
To give relief to the appellant after making fresh calculation— It appears the High Court Division made the Rule absolute holding that it is now a settled principle of law that the fiscal legislation, not to speak of any penalty fixing liability of payment of VAT upon the appellant, could not be of any retrospective operation and accordingly the Customs authority could not claim any evasion of VAT on the basis of assuming production which is not based on any factual determination for the period upto 1.7.1995. Similarly there was information to the petitioner and others to determine of wastage only on 27.4.97 could have prospective effect and not retrospective effect; thus the claim of the amount as evasion of taxes prior to the said period has been made without any lawful authority. But the appellant having admitted to have defaulted to make payment of Tk.12,01,470.00 on account of C.I. Sheets, the appellant is liable to pay the said amount and accordingly the claim of the respondents on the account of evasion of taxes for assuming production on the basis of the determining amount allowable prior to 27.4.97 is without any lawful authority and accordingly the appellant is not liable to pay any tax on the ground of evasion of any tax at Tk.37,24,258.00 as found by the Appellate Tribunal but they are liable to pay Tk.12,04,657.00 on account of VAT for the years between 1992-93 as admitted by them. However as it appears that enhanced rate which was approved by Office Order dated 30.9.92 came into operation with effect from 1.10.1992 the above amount of tk.12,04,657.00 on account of VAT was fixed by the respondents for the period from July 1992-1993 and accordingly the appellant will get relief to the extent that calculation for fixing the amount of VAT will have to be made from 1.10.1992 instead of 1.7.92 and accordingly the respondent are directed to give relief to the appellant to the above extent only after making fresh calculation. .....K. L. Y, Steel Industries Ltd. =VS= Customs, Excise & VAT Appellate Tribunal, (Civil), 2024(2) [17 LM (AD) 310] ....View Full Judgment

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

Value Added Tax Act, 1991
Section 9 And
Clause-Gha of Rule 22(1) of the VAT Rules, 1991:
Provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 9 provides that if someone takes rebate in the prohibited circumstances mentioned under sub-section (1), such rebate can be rejected by the concerned officer, who may also direct such person to do necessary adjustment in the current account register, namely Mushak-18, as required to be maintained in view of the provisions under Clause-Gha of Rule 22(1) of the VAT Rules, 1991. This sub-section (2) of Section 9 speaks about only for issuance of direction, not for direct action of adjustment in the current account register. ...City Vegetable Oil Mils Ltd & ors Vs. Commissioner, CEV & ors, (Civil), 3 SCOB [2015] HCD 108 ....View Full Judgment

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

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