Value Added
Tax Act [XXII of 1991]
Sections 3, 5, 15, 31 & 73—
Value Added
Tax as introduced in Bangladesh is an indirect Tax in place of Sales Tax and
Business Turnover Tax to simplify the taxation system. Under the VAT scheme the
Bangladesh Telegraph and Telephone Board being a registered taxable person
providing to collect the value added tax from its subscribers, including the
petitioner, and has further responsibility to deposit the tax thus collected to
the VAT account of the Government.
Dr Ahmed
Husain vs Chairman, Bangladesh Telegraph and Telephone Board, Dhaka 50 DLR 115.
Sections 3 & 5(5)—
Some
services as noticed may have to be rendered within the country but there is no
clear—cut demarcation as to the length of service rendered within the country
and the service rendered outside the country and unless that is determined VAT
cannot be levied even if it is permissible under the VAT Act on the ground of
uncertainty and ambiguity.
Intertek
Testing Services International Limited and others vs National Board of Revenue
55 DLR 691.
Section 9—
A credit
mechanism is created under section 9(1) for a taxable person to recover the tax
that has been charged on the inputs coming from business. Any excess payment of
the tax only leaves that amount of money temporarily in the hands of the
Government. It must be paid back to the taxable person.
Dr Ahmed
Husain vs Chairman, Bangladesh Telegraph and Telephone Board, Dhaka and others
50 DLR 115.
Section 42—
Since the
respondents did not dispute the fact that the declaration of price was filed on
11-4-1994 and the same was accepted by the authority and that the petitioner
had paid VAT regularly on the basis of declaration no further fact is required
to be determined. The question involved in this application being purely a
question of law and the impugned demands being ex facie illegal, this writ petition
is maintainable.
Oram Limited
vs Commissioner of Customs Excise and VAT Commtssionerate 53 DLR 373.
Section 45—
Prior to
reopening of the assessment the petitioner was entitled to a notice to show
cause as to why the assessment against the petitioner should not be reopened on
the alleged ground of evasion of taxes.
Foto Fast
Color Lab vs Bangladesh & others 52 DLR 533
Section 55(1)(2)—
The
petitioner having not lodged written objection as contemplated under
sub-section 3 of this section against the impugned demand of tax he is not
entitled to the show cause notice against the recovery of tax as contended.
Eastern
Chemical Industries Limited vs Government of Bangladesh 48 DLR 84.
Section 67(1)—
The customs
authorities cannot resort to the law in refusing to refund money realised
mistakenly as VAT, on grounds of limitation provided therein, simply for the
reason that while levying VAT on the item they did not act under the same law.
Wahidullah
Majumder vs Bangladesh and others 49 DLR 400.
Value Added
Tax Rules, 1991
Rule 3(2)—
The specific
case of the petitioner being that the declaration submitted by them was
accepted by the authority and they paid VAT regularly have not been denied by
the respondent in the affidavit-in-opposition we have no hesitation but to
accept the case of the petitioner.
Oram Limited
vs Commissioner of Customs Excise and VAT Commissionerate 53 DLR 373.