Urban Area Rationing Regulation, 1956
Clause 32— Meaning of
“appointed establishment proprietor”—Person not so appointed has no obligation.
Clause 32 of the EB Urban Area Rationing Regulation, 1956 which has been
framed under clause 7 of the Bengal Rationing Order, 1943 will have no
application unless a person is an appointed establishment proprietor. In the
absence of anything to show that a person is an’ appoints establishment
proprietor’ it cannot be held that there is any obligation on the part of a
permit-holder to act under para 32 of the aforesaid Regulation of 1950.
AbduI Malek Vs. MU Chowdhury (1961) 13 DLR 456.
Urban Immovable Property Tax Act
(XI of 1957)
If the urban tax commutated at 5% is deducted the Municipality is left
with 12%.
Whatever be the annual value of the holding the urban tax is 5% of the
annual value. The Model Tax Schedule remained unchanged and, therefore, the two
taxes could not exceed 17%. If the Urban tax which is now 5% is deducted the
Municipality is left with 12%. That 12% is split up at 7% for holding rate, 3%
for lighting rate and 2% for conservancy; total 12%. The two taxes together
must not exceed 17%.
Dacca Municipal Corporation Vs. Sonali Bank (1982) 34 DLR (AD) 247.
—Urban Immovable Property Tax Act— 1957—Municipal Administration
Ordinance, 1960—Levies under these two laws.
Property tax is levied by the Government, Municipal tax and rates levied
by the Municipal Committee under the MA Ordinance and MT Rules— Model Tax
Schedule is binding upon the Municipal Committee.
Dhaka Municipal Corporation Vs. Sonali Bank (1982)34 DLR (AD) 247.
“Vacancy remission”
The petitioner’s contention that because of ‘vacancy remission’ the
annual valuation of his premises was reduced from Rs. 45,000/- to Rs. 15,000/ –
was rejected by the Director of Taxation on appeal.
Haleem Engineering Vs. Taxation Officer (1977) 29 DLR 76.
S. 1(2)—The provisions of section 1(2) of EP Act
(XI of 1957) extend the taxable area by means of the Notification which arc not
town or urban area, but are villages.—The authority is competent to extend the
provisions of the Ac (, by means of Notification, to villages other than town
or urban areas in view of the words “to such other areas in East Pakistan” in
sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Act.
Amin Jute Mills Vs. Bangladesh (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 86.
S. 2(1)—Oil reservoir forms part of a holding.
The expression ‘building’ occurs in the definition of holding’ as
defined under section 2(1) of the Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1957.
“Holding” means land held under one title or agreement and surrounded by one
set of boundaries together with building thereon.
Oil reservoir tanks are ‘structure’ of a permanent nature and the same
being of permanent nature forms integral part of the holding.
Burmah Eastern Ltd. Vs. Assessing Officer (1978) 30 DLR 86.
S. 3—Model Tax Schedule empowers Municipal
Authority to levy building tax—Taxation Officer not bound by Model Tax
Schedule.
People’s Jute Mills Vs. Administrator (1976)28 DLR 283.
S.4—Tax on Building. The Urban Immovable Property Tax Act
expressly levied tax on holding and the opinion is that there could be no two
taxes on the same property for the same purpose. Realizing this difficulty the
Legislature by the Finance Act of 1980 amended the Urban Immovable Property
Act.
Dacca Municipal Corporation Vs. Sonali Bank and or. (1982) 34 DLR (AD)
247 (248).
S. 6—Exemption from payment of tax under the
Act is only with regard to lands and buildings in exclusive occupation of a
religious or charitable body.
Baitul Mukarram Vs. Taxation Officer (1978) 30 DLR (SC) 54.
—Secs, 6 & 11— Lands and buildings which are let out by
such charitable or religious institution are not exempt from tax under the Act.
Ibid.
—“Exclusively occupied” explained.
It is impossible to make a different meaning to the words “exclusively
occupied” for religious and charitable purposes so as to include a case of
letting the lands and building and thereafter making out a case of use of
income for religious and charitable purposes as that will be giving a different
meaning which the Legislature did not intend thereby. Ibid.
Urban Immovable
Property Tax Rules, 1957
R. 4—A holding’s annual valuation.
Rule 4 provides the procedure for levying of tax in non-municipal areas
which says that in areas notified under sub-section (2) of section 1 of the
Act, the annual cluing value of a holding shall be deemed to be the gross
annual rental at which the holding may reasonably be expected to let.
When a holding is outside the municipal area, the Municipal Rules have
got no application in the matter of assessment of valuation of the holding.
Burmah Eastern Ltd. Vs. Assessing Officer (1978) 30 DLR 86.
Rule 8—initial taxation is done by the Taxation Officer—Revision of that tax falls within the authority of the Director who may
direct its increase or decrease in his revisional authority. A revision of tax
by the Taxation Officer without any direction from the Director not legal.
Dacca Jute Mills Lid. Vs. Taxation Officer (1977)29 DLR 175.
R. 10—Rule 10 is prospective—Assessing Officer
not competent to make assessment afresh when assessment was already made. The
oil reservoir tanks having once been included in the valuation for the purpose
of assessment of taxation for those years, there was no scope for re-opening it
under rule 10 on the ground of under-assessment.
Burmah Eastern Ltd. Vs. Assessing Officer (1978) 30 DLR 86.
—Closed assessment of tax can not be reopened to assess additional tax.
Assessing Officer Vs. Burmah Eastern Ltd. (1982) 34 DLR (AD) 29(30).
—Where the impugned action is found to be without jurisdiction, the
question of availing statutory alternative remedy does not arise. Ibid.