Sections 7(3)(17)(18)
|
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.
|
GM Abdus Sattar vs Ministry of Finance, People's Republic of Bangladesh, and others |
8 BLC (AD) 59 |
Section 36
|
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
|
Golam Md. Faroque Uddin & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors |
8 SCOB [2016] HCD 67 |
Finance Act
|
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
|
S. Alam Beg Manufacturing Mills Ltd. =VS= Ministry of Finance, BD |
14 LM (AD) 344 |
Finance Act-
|
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
|
Customs, Excise & Vat Appellate Tribunal =VS= Chattala Industries Ltd. |
14 LM (AD) 623 |
Finance Act-
|
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
|
Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= Ocean Containers Ltd., Dhaka |
12 LM (AD) 97 |