Finance Act, 1999 [XVI of 1999]
Sections 7(3)(17)(18)—
By amending section 7(1) of the VAT Act by the Finance Act, 1999 the legislature has made the goods other than the goods which are luxurious, non-essential and socially undesirable also liable with Supplemen­tary Duty and in the light thereof the existing 3rd schedule has been substituted by new 3rd schedule by section 7(7) of the Finance Act, 1999 and that the matter of given effect to the new 3rd schedule gazette notification has been left with the NBR. GM Abdus Sattar vs Ministry of Finance, People's Republic of Bangladesh, and others 8 BLC (AD) 59.

Finance Act, 1999 [XVI of 1999]
Section 7(17) (18)—
Since the Customs Authority has assessed the duties on the imported goods in due compliance of the provisions of law as mentioned above the Appellate Division is of the view that the contention of the petitioner that levy of Customs duty, supplementary duty and flood surcharge were without jurisdiction is not well founded in law. Since goods on which VAT and supplementary duty are to be levied have clearly been mentioned in the newly inserted 3rd schedule legislated by the Legislature. The Legislature has only left to NBR the matter of notifying the effective date of the newly inserted 3rd schedule of VAT Act and the same can in no way be said legislation by NBR. Salim (Md) vs Commissioner of Customs and another 8 BLC (AD) 134.

The Finance Act, 1998
Section 7(15)-Imposition of value added tax—
Customs authority is empowered to levy taxes on powder milk sold after repacking which has got statutory backing. This is not double taxation and as such section 7(15) of the Finance Act, 1998 is not ultra-vires of any statutory authority. Shah Dairy Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Customs & others. 5 MLR (2000) (AD) 302.

Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
Section 16A And
Section 36 of the Finance Act, 2013:
Power of imposition of surcharge is very much within the plenary power of legislation of the Parliament:
Though the term ‘surcharge’ is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution or not defined in the said Ordinance, the basic concept of ‘surcharge’ was always there in our Constitution and the said Ordinance. The only difference being that while the Indian Constitution, under Article 271, specifically has mentioned the word ‘surcharge’, our Constitution has not mentioned the same in such specific way. Not only that, upon examining the dictionary meaning of the word “impost” as used under the definition of ‘taxation’ as provided by our Constitution under Article 152, there is no semblance of doubt that the Parliament has always had the plenary power to legislate provisions for imposition of ‘additional tax’, ‘extra charge’ or ‘impost’, through whatever terms it may be called, by which some additional charges may be levied on the tax payers in addition to their ordinary tax payments. In consideration of the above wide definition of ‘taxation’ as given by our Constitution and the definition of term ‘Tax’ as provided by the relevant provision of the said Ordinance, we are, therefore, of the view that the power of imposition of surcharge, as has been done by the impugned provisions, was very much within the plenary power of legislation of the Parliament. ...Golam Md. Faroque Uddin & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 67 ....View Full Judgment

Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
Sections 16 CCC, 16, 17, 20, 28(1), 29, 35, 37, 38, 42, 83(2) & sec. 2 (34), (46), (65)
The Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Articles 26, 27, 31, 40 and 42 r/w
Companies Act, 1994
Finance Act
Section 16 CCC of the Ordinance, 1984 is enacted for betterment of the people of the country and to prevent tax evasion–– The legislature suddenly incorporated Section 16 CCC in the Ordinance, 1984 through the Finance Act, 2011, imposing liability of paying minimum tax @ 0.50% on gross receipts for every company irrespective of its profit or loss in an assessment year from all sources; Previously similar provision was also incorporated in the Ordinance, 1984 as Section 16 CC through the Finance Act, 2006 which was subsequently omitted by Finance Act, 2008; The provision of newly inserted Section 16 CCC being inconsistent and contrary to the provisions of Sections 16, 17, 20, 28(1), 29, 35, 37, 38, 42, 83(2) and definition clauses (34), (46), (65) of Section 2 of the Ordinance, 1984 as such is in conflict and contradictory with the aim, spirit, purposes, object and basic concept of the Ordinance, 1984; The fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 26, 27, 31, 40 and 42 of the Constitution have been grossly violated and thus impugned Section 16 CCC of the Ordinance, 1984 is liable to be declared violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and also relevant provisions of the Ordinance, 1984.
The court must, therefore, act within their judicial permissible limitation to uphold the Rule of Law and harness their power in public interest and if the intent and general operation of the impugned tax legislation is to adjust the burden with a fair and reasonable degree of equality, Constitutional requirement is satisfied and in this regard a taxation law enacted by the Parliament in accordance with law is not amenable to judicial review. It has been consistently held by this Division that in matters of policy decision of the Government the court requires restraint. ––Appellate Division is of the view that impugned Section 16 CCC is enacted for betterment of the people of the country and to prevent tax evasion and the enactment is not arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair as well as not violative of any of the provisions of the Ordinance, 1984 or of the Constitution. .....S. Alam Beg Manufacturing Mills Ltd. =VS= Ministry of Finance, BD, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 344] ....View Full Judgment

Value Added Tax Act, 1991
Sections 42 (2)
Customs Act, 1969
Section 196
Finance Act, 1996
Finance Act, 1996 the Legislature has again amended section 42 (2) of the VAT Act inserting a mandatory provision of depositing 50% of the penalty or claimed amount at the time of filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. .....Customs, Excise & Vat Appellate Tribunal =VS= Chattala Industries Ltd., (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 623] ....View Full Judgment

The Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
Section 46A(2)(f)
The Income Tax Rules, 1984
Rule 59A (2)
The Finance Act, 1995
The gazette notification was not operated by giving retrospective effect as such applications seeking exemption by the company were rejected justly and correctly by the NBR– From the SRO 354 dated 02.12.1999 it appears that the gazette notification was not operated by giving retrospective effect as such applications seeking exemption by the petitioner company were rejected justly and correctly by the NBR inasmuch as the ‘container terminal’ of the petitioner company was not entitled to get tax exemption before publication of gazette notification dated 02.12.1999. As the ‘container terminal’ in question was not within the purview of physical infrastructure facility when the petitioner company filed application seeking tax exemption and thus the NBR justly and legally rejected the application for exemption and also correctly rejected the review application dated 31.01.2000 seeking review of earlier order dated 18.10.1999 since there left no scope to review of that application by the NBR. Appellate Division holds that the SRO No.354-Ain/99 dated 02.12.1999 having effect from the date of its publication left no scope to allow tax exemption to the ‘Unit-2’ of the respondent company and the NBR justly and legally rejected the applications filed by the respondent company. The appeal is allowed. .....Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= Ocean Containers Ltd, Dhaka, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 97] ....View Full Judgment

Finance Act, 1999
By the Finance Act 1999, income from a charity has been made taxable. This indicates that a charitable society can invest its money and profit earned from that investment will be taxable. (Per Mahmudul Amin Choudhury, CJ) BRAC v. Professor Mozaffar Ahmed and others, 22 BLD (AD) 41.