Case No: Writ Petition No. 5491 of 2003
Judge: Syed Md. Ziaul Karim. J.
Court: High Court Division,
Advocate: Mr. Ramjan Ali Sikder, Mr. Abdus Salam Mondal,
Citation: 2017 (1) LNJ 7
Case Year: 2016
Appellant: Shah Cement Ltd.
Respondent: Customs, Excise and VAT Tribunal and others
Subject: Income Tax
Delivery Date: 2018-02-04
HIGH COURT DIVISION
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
Syed Md. Ziaul Karim, J
Sheikh Md. Zakir Hossain, J
Shah Cement Industries Limited having its Head Office at Hussein and Khan Chamber, 13 Dilkusha Commercial Area, (4th Floor), Dhaka and factory office at Muktarpur, Police Station Muktarpur, Munshigonj.
. . . Petitioner.
1. The Chairman, Customs, Excise and VAT Appeal Tribunal, 4th Floor Jiban Bima Bhaban, 10 Dilkusha C/A Police Station Motijheel, Dhaka and 5 others
. . . Respondents.
Value Added Tax Act (XXII of 1991)
Value Added Tax Rules, 1991
In the case in hand, the VAT authority did not follow the procedure laid down in section 5(7) of the Act and Sub-Rule(7) of rule 3 of the Rules 1991 and therefore, the price fixed by the authority is not sustainable in law. . . . .(17)
BOC Bangladesh Ltd. Vs. National Board of Revenue and others, 67 DLR (AD) 372 ref.
Mr. Ramjan Ali Sikder, Advocate, with
Mr. Abu Khaled Al Mamun, Advocate,
. . . For the Petitioner.
Mr. Abdus Salam Mondal,DAG, with
Ms. Mahfuza Begum, AAG, and
Mr. Sukumar Biswas, AAG,
. . . For the Respondents.
Syed Md. Ziaul Karim, J.
This Rule Nisi was issued on an application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned order and decision dated 12.6.2003 (Annexure-F) passed by the respondent No.1 vide Nothi No. CEVT/CASE (VAT) DHAKA-92/2002 and communicated to the petitioner on dated 24.7.2003 affirming the order bearing Nothi No. 4/A(26)Shah Cement/Mulla Anu: /Tek/ 2002/4515(3) dated 10.9.2002 passed by the respondent No.2, and communicated to the petitioner on 10.9.2002 (Annexure “D”) should not be declared to have been made illegally and without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
2. At the time of issuance of Rule an adinterim order was passed to the following effect:-
Pending hearing of the Rule, let operation of the order and decision dated 12.6.2003 (Annexure-F) passed by the respondent No.1 vide Nothi No. CEVT/CASE(VAT)-DHAKA-92/2002 and communicated to the petitioner on dated 24.7.2003 affirming the order bearing Nothi No. 4/A(26) ShahCement/ Mulla Anu: /Tek/2002/4515(3) dated 10.9.2002 passed by the respondent No.2, and communicated to the petitioner on 10.9.2002 (Annexure-D) be stayed for a period for 4(four) months from date.
3. The short facts leading to this Rule are that, the petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in manufacturing and producing “SHAH CEMENT” from imported raw materials, like, Cement Clinker. The petitioner is a sister concern of Abul Khair Group of Industries. The petitioner has been paying huge amount of duties and taxes on its imported raw materials and also paying huge amount of VAT on its finished product and thus makes a substantial contribution to the national economy. The petitioner Company is duly registered with the Controller of Imports and exports and with the VAT authority. In accordance with the provisions of Rule 3(1) of the VAT Rules,1991 (‘the Rules’), the petitioner on 3.8.2002 made its price declaration in the prescribed VAT Form-1 declaring the ‘price of its Cement (the goods) of Tk.167.00/- per bag containing 50kg including all costs of the manufacturer except VAT. The retail price of the goods after VAT was stated as Tk.192.05/- (TK167.00/- price + 15% VAT on the price). After submission of the price declaration (Annexure-A) the respondent No.3 issued its office letter dated 18.8.2002 bearing Nothi No. 4/Cement(6) 5/VAT/ 2000/Aonsha-1/1724 holding that the VAT payable is on the retail price of Tk. 188.00 per bag containing 50kg cement. Against which the petitioner preferred appeal to the commissioner and then to the VAT appellate tribunal who also affirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner.
4. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition and obtained the present Rule.
5. The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner seeks to impeach the impugned order on four fold arguments –
The impugned order is without lawful authority inasmuch as the respondent No.1, Tribunal, in passing the impugned order failed to consider that the retail price of the petitioner’s product is Tk.167.00/- per bag containing 50 kg and 15% VAT calculated pursuant to Rule 3(1) of the Rules 1991. The retail price of the goods after addition of VAT becomes Tk.192.05/- (TK167.00/- price + 15% VAT on the price). But the respondents wrongly decided and approved the price of the petitioner’s goods at Tk.188.00/- which is excess Tk. 21.00/- (Tk.188.00 - Tk.167.00). If that excess amount is payable, it would amount to VAT on VAT and thus the impugned orders are liable to be declared to have been issued without lawful authority and are no legal effect.
The impugned order is without lawful authority inasmuch as the respondents No.1-4 failed to appreciate that the petitioner declared price of its goods on 3.8.2002 at Tk.167.00/- per 50 Kg bag. The respondent No.3 approved the price at Tk.188.00/- per 50 kg bag without showing any reason whatsoever; that the petitioner filed appeal and the respondent No.2, Commissioner of Customs Excise and VAT, who wholly on erroneous premises approved and confirmed the above price on the ground that the same was fixed on the basis of the guidelines issued by the NBR on 10.9.2002. On the date of approving the price of the petitioner’s goods there was no guidelines of the NBR. The NBR issued its guidance for the first time on 10.9.2002 which is about one month after such approval and thus the respondents on erroneous view arrived at a wrong decision and thus the impugned orders are liable to be declared to have been issued without lawful authority and are of no legal effect.
The learned Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner and Appellate Tribunal failed to consider the method of calculation of VAT and the buyer of the manufacturer and therefore, arbitrarily imposed VAT and as such the same has been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
Fourth and lastly:
The buyer of the petitioner is distributor and not the consumer and as such back calculation of VAT on the retail sale price has been made with mala fide intention and without any lawful authority.
6. In support of his contentions he refers the case of Chittagong Cement Clinker Grinding Co. Ltd. -vs- Chairman, National Board of Revenue and others, 60 DLR-287 held:
Value Added Tax Act 1991 Section-5
Value Added Tax Rules 1991 Rules 3 & 9.
“The provision for determination by such departmental officers of the base-value of such goods, which a manufacturer is entitled to supply at his consideration, appears to have been made under rule 3 in derogation of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the VAT Act. When the law does not put any embargo in fixation of the price by a manufacturer of its goods no rules or decision of the VAT authority can impose any such flat or minimum value for such goods in the country, adversely affecting the interest of such manufacturer.
7. The learned Assistant Attorney General appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes the Rule and submits that the respondents are empowered by the law to assess the value of the product independently. He lastly submits that the points raised before this court are absolutely the disputed question of facts which cannot be resolved in writ petition. Therefore the Rule is liable to discharged.
8. In order to appreciate their submissions we have gone through the record and given our anxious consideration to their submissions.
9. On going to the materials on record it transpires to us that, in view of the provisions laid down in section-5 of the VAT Act 1991 and Rule 3 of Rules 1991 the concern authority i.e. respondents are empowered by law to assess the value of the product and to impose VAT upon such value.
10. For the convenience of understanding section 5 of the VAT Act 1991 and Rule 3 of the Rules 1991 read as hereunder-
5z j§mÉpwk¡Se Ll d¡kÑl SeÉ j§mÉ ¢el©fez- (1) fZÉ Bjc¡¢el ®rœ kC j§mÉl Efl j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll fËcu qCh a¡q¡ ¢ejÀl©f Ll¡ qCh Customs Act Hl section 25 [Abh¡ section 25A] Hl Ad£e Bjc¡¢e öó Bl¡fe£u j§mÉl p¢qa Bjc¡¢e öó Hhw pÇf¤lL öó pq AeÉ¡eÉ öó J Ll (k¢c ¢LR¤ b¡L), BN¡j BuLl hÉa£a, ®k¡N L¢lu¡z
(2) Ef-d¡l¡ (3) Hl ¢hd¡e p¡fr, fZÉ plhl¡ql ®rœ ®kC j§mÉl Efl j§mÉpwk¡Se Ll fËcu qCh, EJ² fZÉl (fËÙ¹aL¡lL h¡ Evf¡cL h¡ hÉhp¡u£) La«ÑL ®œ²a¡l ¢eLV qCa fË¡fÉ fZ, k¡q¡a (fËÙ¹aL¡lL h¡ Evf¡cL h¡ hÉhp¡u£) La«ÑL œ²uL«a EfLlZ j§mÉ, k¡ha£u hÉu J avLa«ÑL fËk¡SÉ ®rœ, fËcš L¢jne, Q¡SÑ ¢g J pÇf¤lL öó pq pLm öó J Ll (j¤mÉ pwk¡Se Ll hÉa£a) Hhw j¤e¡g¡ A¿¹i¥ÑJ² b¡¢Lhx
ah naÑ b¡L ®k, Bjc¡e£L«a EfLlZ hÉhq¡lœ²j Llk¡NÉ fZÉ fËÙ¹aLlZ h¡ Bjc¡e£L«a fZÉ ¢hœ²u, ¢h¢eju h¡ fËL¡¿¹l qÙ¹¡¿¹ll ®rœ Customs Act Hl Section 25 Abh¡ 25A ®j¡a¡hL ®k j§mÉl ¢i¢ša d¡l¡ 9 Ae¤k¡u£ EfLlZ Ll ®lu¡a NËqe Ll¡ qu ®pC j§mÉl ¢i¢ša plhl¡qL«a fZÉl j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll Bl¡fk¡NÉ j§mÉ pwk¡Sel q¡l Hhw f¢lj¡Z ¢e¢cÑÖV L¢la f¡¢lhz)
[2Lz ®L¡e ¢eh¢åa hÉ¢J² k¢c L¾VÊ¡ƒ h¡ p¡h-L¾VÊ¡ƒl j¡dÉj AeÉ ®L¡e hÉ¢J²l Evf¡¢ca fZÉ pwNËqf§hÑL a¡q¡l ¢eSü hË¡ä e¡j pl¡p¢l h¡ ¢eSü ¢hœ²u ®L¾cÐ h¡ ¢X¢ØVÊ¢hEVl h¡ L¢jne HS¾Vl j¡dÉj ¢hœ²u Lle, a¡q¡ qCm hË¡ä e¡jk¤J² fZÉ¢Vl ®rœ Eq¡l üaÄ¡¢dL¡l£ La«ÑL ®œ²a¡l ¢eLV qCa fË¡fÉ fZl ¢i¢ša j§mÉ pk¡Se Ll ¢el©fZ Ll¡ qCh Hhw EJ² fZ Ef-d¡l¡ (2) ®a h¢ZÑa ""fË¡fÉ fZ'' Hl pjf¢lj¡Z qChz]
(3) ®k fZÉl ®rœ M¤Ql¡ j§mÉl ¢i¢ša j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll¡ Bl¡¢fa qCh plL¡l, plL¡l£ ®NSV fË‘¡fe à¡l¡, a¡q¡ ¢Øbl L¢la f¡¢lh Hhw j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll Bl¡fl ®rœ EJ² fZÉl M¤Ql¡-j§mÉ qCh Eq¡l fËÙ¹aL¡lL h¡ Evf¡cL La«ÑL pw¢nÔÖY~ LjÑLaÑ¡l Ae¤j¡ceœ²j, ¢edÑ¡¢la ®pC j§mÉ k¡q¡a pLm fËL¡l hÉu, L¢jne, Q¡SÑ, öó J Ll A¿¹i¥ÑJ² b¡¢Lh Hhw EJ² fZÉl ¢hno R¡f (brand) h¡ ¢Qq² k¤J² L¢lu¡ Eq¡ ®kC j§mÉ (k¡q¡ EJ² fZÉl N¡u h¡ Eq¡l fË¢a¢V ®j¡sL, b¢mu¡ h¡ ®L¡o p¤ØfÖV, mre£u J Aefe£ui¡h j¤¢âa Ll¡ qu) p¡d¡lZ ®i¡J²¡cl ¢eLV ¢hœ²u qChz
(4) ®ph¡ fËc¡el ®rœ j¤mÉ pwk¡Se Ll d¡kÑÉ Ll¡ qCh phÑj¡V fË¡¢çl Eflx
[ah naÑ b¡L ®k, ®L¡e ¢e¢cÑÖV ®ph¡l ®rœ ®h¡XÑ, Bcn à¡l¡, fËL«a j§mÉ pwk¡Sel Abh¡ avLa«ÑL Hac¤ŸnÉ plL¡l£ NSV fË‘¡fel j¡dÉj j§mÉ pwk¡Sel ¢edÑ¡¢la q¡ll ¢i¢ša j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll¡ d¡kÑÉ L¢la f¡¢lhz]
[4(L) ®L¡e ¢eh¢åa h¡ ¢ehåek¡NÉ hÉhp¡u£ La«ÑL fZÉ plhl¡ql ®rœ, ®L¡e ¢e¢cÑÖV Ll ®ju¡c EJ² hÉhp¡u£l plhl¡q h¡hc fË¡ç h¡ fË¡ç h¢mu¡ ¢hh¢Qa ®j¡V j§mÉ, k¡q¡ ¢h¢d à¡l¡ ¢edÑ¡¢la fÜ¢aa ¢el©¢fa qCh, Hl ¢i¢ša j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll¡ Bl¡f Ll¡ k¡Chz]
(5) ®kC fZÉl ®rœ h¡¢ZSÉ h¡V¡ (trade discount) fËc¡e Ll¡ qu ®pC fZÉl ®rœ, j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll Bl¡f ®k¡NÉ qCh h¡¢ZSÉ h¡V¡ fËc¡el fl ®kC j§mÉ Eq¡ plhl¡q Ll¡ qu ®pC j§mÉl Eflx
ah naÑ b¡L ®k, h¡¢ZSÉ h¡V¡ fËc¡el fl ®pC j§mÉ EJ² fZÉ plhl¡q Ll¡ qu Eq¡ Q¡m¡e fœ EõM L¢la qCh Hhw fËcš h¡¢ZSÉ h¡V¡l f¢lj¡e p¡d¡lZ hÉhp¡u l£¢al p¢qa p‰¢af§ZÑ qCa qChz
(7) HC d¡l¡u k¡q¡ ¢LR¤C b¡L¥L e¡ ®Le, k¢c ®h¡XÑ, Seü¡bÑl …l¦aÄ ¢hhQe¡ J kb¡fk¤J² Ae¤på¡e f§hÑL p¿¹ÖV qu ®k ®L¡e Ll ®k¡NÉ fZÉ h¡ ®ph¡l ®rœ j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll, h¡ ®rœ ja, j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll J pÇf¤lL öó d¡kÑÉLl¡l ¢e¢jš Eq¡l VÉ¡¢lg j§mÉ ¢edÑ¡lZ Ll¡ pj£Q£e a¡q¡ qCm ®h¡XÑ plL¡l£ ®NSV S¡l£L«a Bcn à¡l¡ EJ² Llk¡NÉ fZÉ h¡ ®ph¡l VÉ¡¢lg j§mÉ ¢edÑ¡lZ L¢la f¡¢lhz
3z [j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll h¡, ®rœja, j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll J pÇf¤lL öó] d¡kÑl SeÉ j§mÉ ®O¡oe¡z- [(1) BCe Hl d¡l¡ 5 J d¡l¡ 7 Hl EŸnÉ f§leLÒf Llk¡NÉ fZÉ plhl¡ql f§hÑ ¢eh¢åa hÉ¢J² avLa«ÑL Evf¡¢ca h¡ plhl¡qk¡NÉ fZÉl Efl fËcu j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll¡ h¡, ®rœja, j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll J pÇf¤lL öó d¡kÑl mrÉ pw¢nÔÖV fZÉl EfLlZ - Evf¡c pÇfLÑ h¡ pqL (input-output co-efficient) pq j§mÉ ¢i¢š pÇf¢LÑa HL¢V ®O¡oZ¡ glj "j§pL-1' c¤C fËØb pw¢nÔÖV Hm¡L¡l ¢hi¡N£u LjÑLaÑ¡l ¢eLV c¡¢Mm L¢lhe Hhw EJ²l©f c¡¢MmL«a ®O¡oZ¡l ¢i¢šaC, ®O¡oZ¡ c¡¢Mml a¡¢lM qCa, ¢eh¢åa hÉ¢J² a¡q¡l plhl¡qk¡NÉ fZÉl Efl fÊcu Ll¡ ¢edÑ¡lZ J f¢ln¡df§hÑL fZÉ plhl¡q L¢la f¡¢lhez]
[(2) Ef-¢h¢d (1) Ae¤k¡u£ ®O¡¢oa j§mÉ¢i¢šl ®L¡e f¢lhaÑe p¡del fËu¡Se qCm, EJ² f¢lhaÑe L¡kÑLl L¢lh¡l p¡a L¡kÑ¢chp f§hÑ ¢eh¢åa hÉ¢J² glj "j§pL-1' Hl j§mÉ¢i¢šl HL¢V ea¥e ®O¡oZ¡ h¡ f§hÑ c¡¢MmL«a ®O¡oZ¡l pwn¡de£, k¡q¡C fËk¡SÉ qEL e¡ ®Le, ¢hi¡N£u LjÑLaÑ¡l ¢eLV c¡¢Mm L¢lhe Hhw ea¥ei¡h h¡ pwn¡¢da ®O¡¢oa j§mÉ¢i¢š Ae¤k¡u£ fËcu Ll ¢el©fZ J f¢ln¡d L¢lhez ¢hi¡N£u LjÑLaÑ¡ ®O¡¢oa j§mÉ pÇf¢LÑa abÉ¡¢c a¡vr¢ZL i¡h pw¢nÔÖY~ p¡LÑm p¤f¡¢leVeX¾V Hhw L¢jne¡ll cçll L¢ÇfEV¡l ®pmL Ah¢qa L¢lhez
(3) Ef-¢h¢d (1) h¡ (2) Ae¤k¡u£ ®O¡¢oa j§mÉ ¢i¢šl ¢hou flha£Ñ pju ¢hi¡N£u LjÑLaÑ¡, p¡LÑm p¤f¡¢leVeX¾V Abh¡ L¢jne¡ll ¢eLV qCa rja¡ fË¡ç AeÉ ®L¡e j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll LjÑLaÑ¡ La«ÑL Hac EŸnÉ f¢lQ¡¢ma ac¿¹ h¡ h¡S¡l Sl£f [Abh¡ p¡LÑm, ¢hi¡N h¡ L¢jne¡ll cçl l¢ra A¢iæ h¡ Ae¤l©f h¡ pjS¡a£u fZÉl j§mÉ pwk¡Sel f¢lj¡Z J ¢hi¡Se, fË¢aÖW¡el fËL«a hÉu, ®O¡¢oa j§mÉ, Ae¤j¡¢ca j§mÉ h¡ h¡S¡l j§mÉ pwœ²¡¿¹ abÉ Ef¡šl ¢i¢ša f¢lQ¡¢ma ac¿¹ h¡ Sl£f] fË¡ç abÉl ¢i¢ša k¢c fËa£uj¡e qu ®k-
(K) fZÉl ®O¡¢oa j§mÉ¢i¢š BCel d¡l¡ 5 Hl p¢qa ApwN¢af§ZÑ h¡
(L) HLC A¢drœ h¡ AeÉ ®L¡e A¢drœl Ae¤l©f fËL«¢a J …eNaj¡el fZÉl j§mÉ¢i¢šl a¥me¡u ®O¡¢oa j§mÉ ¢i¢š EõMk¡NÉ f¢lj¡Z Lj, h¡
(M) glj "j§pL-1' fËc¢nÑa j§mÉ pwk¡Sel f¢lj¡Z EõMk¡NÉ i¡h Lj, h¡
(N) fZÉl plhl¡qL¡l£ J plhl¡q NËq£a¡l jdÉ ¢hcÉj¡e ®L¡e pÇfLÑl L¡lZ h¡ a¡q¡cl f¡lØf¡¢lL h¡ ®k ®L¡e HL frl B¢bÑL p¤¢hd¡ m¡il EŸnÉ ®O¡¢oa j§mÉ¢i¢š EõMk¡NÉ i¡h Lj,
Hhw ®pC L¡lZ j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll h¡, ®rœja, j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll J pÇf¤lL öó Lj f¢ln¡¢da qCu¡R h¡ qCa f¡l, a¡q¡ qCm ¢hi¡N£u LjÑLaÑ¡, ¢eh¢åa hÉ¢J²L k¤¢J²p‰a öe¡e£l p¤k¡N fËc¡e Ll¡l fl, EJ²l©f pwNªq£a h¡ fË¡ç abÉl ¢i¢ša k¤¢J²p‰a j§mÉ¢i¢š ¢edÑ¡lZ L¢la f¡¢lhe Hhw ®O¡oZ¡l a¡¢lM qCa EJ² j§mÉ ¢i¢š Ae¤k¡u£ pw¢nÖV pLm Ll ®ju¡c fËcu Ll ¢el©fZ J f¢ln¡dk¡NÉ qChz
hÉ¡MÉ¡z- HC Ef¢h¢dl Ad£e ¢hi¡N£u LjÑLaÑ¡ La«ÑL j§mÉ¢i¢š J Ll ¢edÑ¡lZl L¡lZ, BCe h¡ ¢h¢dj¡m¡l Ad£e pwO¢Va ®L¡e Afl¡dl cä pÇf¢LÑa ¢hd¡el L¡kÑLla¡ r¥æ qCh e¡z]
ah naÑ b¡L ®k, ¢hi¡N£u LjÑLaÑ¡ j§mÉ ®O¡oZ¡ fË¡¢çl 15(fel) L¡kÑ¢chpl jdÉ Eõ¢Ma L¡kÑœ²j pÇfæ L¢la hÉbÑ qCm ®O¡¢oa j§mÉ ¢hou a¡q¡l ®L¡e Bf¢š e¡C h¢mu¡ NZÉ qChz
(6) d¡l¡ 5 Hl Ef-d¡l¡ (5) Ae¤k¡u£ h¡¢ZSÉ h¡V¡ fËc¡el ®rœ ¢eh¢åa hÉ¢J²L Bpm Hhw h¡¢ZSÉ h¡V¡ fËc¡el fl ®k j§mÉ fZÉ plhl¡q qCh ®pC j§mÉ Hhw ®k ®ju¡cl SeÉ h¡¢ZSÉ h¡V¡ L¡kÑLl qCh ®pC ®ju¡c EõM f§hÑL HL¢V S¡a£u ®~c¢eL ¢h‘¢ç fËQ¡l J pw¢nÔÖV ¢hi¡N£u LjÑLaÑ¡L Ah¢qa L¢la qCh Hhw h¡¢ZSÉ h¡V¡l f¢lj¡Z fËL«a j§mÉl fel na¡wnl A¢dL qCa f¡¢lh e¡ Hhw ®k ®L¡e h¡l j¡p pju ph¡ÑµQ ¢a¢ln ¢cel SeÉ h¡¢ZSÉ h¡V¡ fËc¡e Ll¡ k¡Chz
(7) Ef-¢h¢d (1) H k¡q¡C b¡L¥L e¡ ®Le, [L¢jne¡l] ¢eh¢åa hÉ¢J²l Bhceœ²j h¡ üaÄxfËhªš qCu¡ [h¡ ¢hi¡N£u LjÑLaÑ¡l Ae¤l¡dœ²j] fZÉl h¡S¡l j§mÉ EW¡e¡j¡l L¡le h¡ ay¡q¡l ¢hhQe¡u AeÉ ®L¡e ¢hno L¡lZ ®L¡e fZÉ h¡ fZÉ ®nËZ£l ®rœ Ll ¢el¦fel SeÉ j§mÉ ¢i¢š ¢Øbl L¢la f¡¢lhez
[ah naÑ bL ®k, ¢eh¢åa hÉ¢J²l Bhcel ®rœ, Bhce fË¡¢çl a¡¢lM qCa (fel) L¡kÑ¢chpl jdÉ L¢jne¡l EJ² Bhcel Efl ¢pÜ¡¿¹ fËc¡e L¢la hÉbÑ qCm ¢a¢e Bhce¢V j”¤l L¢lu¡Re h¢mu¡ NZÉ qChx
BlJ naÑ b¡L ®k, üaÄxfËhªš qCu¡ h¡ ¢hi¡N£u LjÑLaÑ¡l Ae¤l¡dœ²j j§mÉ ¢i¢š ¢Øbl Ll¡l ®rœ, L¢jne¡l ®L¡e fZÉ h¡ fZÉ ®nËZ£l j§mÉ ¢hou p¤f¡¢ln fËc¡el SeÉ, ®h¡XÑ La«ÑL Bcn à¡l¡ N¢Wa, j§mÉ ¢i¢š fkÑ¡m¡Qe¡ L¢j¢VL Ae¤l¡d L¢la f¡¢lhez]
(8) plhl¡qk¡NÉ fZÉl ®O¡¢oa j§mÉ a¡¢mL¡ fZÉ fËÙ¹aLlZ h¡ Evf¡ceØbml [h¡ hÉhp¡uØbml] HCl©f ®L¡e Øb¡e By¢Vu¡ l¡¢Ma qCh k¡q¡a Eq¡ pqSC cª¢ÖVN¡Ql quz]
[(9) ®k pLm Evf¡¢ca h¡ plhl¡qk¡NÉ fZÉl Efl BCe Hl d¡l¡ 5 Hl Ef-d¡l¡ (7) Ae¤k¡u£ ®h¡XÑ La«ÑL VÉ¡¢lg j§mÉ ¢edÑ¡lZ Ll¡ qCu¡R ®p pLm fËaÉL¢V fZÉl SeÉ ¢eh¢åa hÉ¢J²L glj "j§pL-1L' H EfLlZ- Evf¡c pÇfLÑ h¡ pqN (input-output co-efficient) pÇf¢LÑa HL¢V ®O¡oZ¡ pw¢nÔÖV Hm¡L¡l ¢hi¡N£u LjÑLaÑ¡l ¢eLV c¡¢Mm L¢la qCh Hhw ¢hi¡N£u LjÑLaÑ¡ EJ² ®O¡oZ¡ fœ k¡Q¡C h¡R¡C L¢lu¡ fË¡ç abÉ fËu¡Se pwn¡def§hÑL Ae¤j¡ce L¢lhe Hhw ¢eh¢åa hÉ¢J² EJ²l©f Ae¤j¡¢ca EfLlZ- Evf¡c pÇfLÑ h¡ pqNl ¢i¢ša VÉ¡¢lg j¤mÉl A¢de fZÉl fËcu j¤mÉ pwk¡Se Ll¡ h¡, ®rœja, j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll J pÇf§lL öó ¢el©fZ J fËc¡e L¢lhex
ah naÑ b¡L ®k, ¢eh¢åa hÉ¢J² La«ÑL fËcš ®O¡oZ¡u ®L¡e f¢lhaÑe h¡ pwn¡de£ Beuel ®rœ ¢eh¢åa hÉ¢J²L k¤¢J²p‰a öe¡e£l p¤k¡N fËc¡e Lla qChz]
[3Lz ®ph¡l ®rœ j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll d¡kÑÉl SeÉ j§mÉ ®O¡oe¡z- ®h¡XÑ, p¡d¡lZ h¡ ¢hno Bcn à¡l¡, Llk¡NÉ ®L¡e ph¡ fËc¡el ®rœ pw¢nÔÖV ¢eh¢åa hÉ¢J² LaªÑL j§mÉ pwk¡Se Ll d¡kÑÉl SeÉ j§mÉ¢i¢š ®O¡oZ¡ fËc¡el Bcn fËc¡e J ®O¡oZ¡l fÜ¢a ¢edÑ¡lZ L¢la f¡¢lhz]
11. It is pertinent to point out that the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 18.08.2002 fixed rate considering the market value in the following term:
“p§œ¡J² fœl j¡dÉj c¡¢MmL«a j§mÉ ®O¡oe¡ pwœ²¡¿¹ L¡NS fœ¡¢c fl£r¡ J pjS¡a£u/A¢iæ fZÉ Evf¡ceL¡l£ fË¢aÖW¡el j§mÉl p¡b p¡j”pÉ LlZ ab¡ L¢jne¡l jq¡cul Bcn fœ ew-4/H(36)j§pL/Ax ¢px ®L¡x/j§x Bf£m/j§xn¡M¡/2002/2642-43, a¡¢lM 09-06-2002 Cw ®j¡a¡hL Bfe¡cl L¡lM¡e¡l Evf¡¢ca fZÉ ¢ejÀl©f ¢edÑ¡¢la Ll¡l¡fk¡NÉ j§mÉ Ae¤j¡ce cu¡ qm¡z”
¢edÑ¡¢la Ll¡l¡fk¡NÉ j§mÉ
50 ®L¢Sl fË¢a hÙ¹¡
(HLna AÖV¡¢n V¡L¡)
EmÉMÉ, Ae¤j¡¢ca j§mÉ, j§mÉ ®O¡oe¡l a¡¢lM ®bL L¡kÑLl qhz
12. On appeal, the commissioner on considering different method affirmed the order of the Deputy commissioner on the following terms:
“¢hi¡N£u LjÑLaÑ¡ S¡e¡e ®k, ¢a¢e ®h¡XÑl p¡b ®k¡N¡k¡N Ll S¡ea ®flRe ®k, ®h¡XÑ La«ÑL N¢Wa j§mÉ ¢i¢š L¢j¢Vl p¤f¡¢lnL«a j§pL Bl¡fk¡NÉ e§ÉeÉaj j§mÉ 188.00 V¡L¡ Q¥s¡¿¹ i¡h L¡kÑLl Ll¡ qµRz ®p ®j¡a¡hL ¢a¢e EJ² e§eÉaj j§mÉ ¢i¢šLC NËqZk¡NÉ j§mÉ ¢i¢š ¢qp¡h ¢eÜ¡ÑlZ LlRez
BhceL¡l£l hJ²hÉ J ¢hi¡N£u LjÑLaÑ¡l L¡kÑœ²jpq p¡jNË£L ¢hou¡¢c fkÑ¡m¡Qe¡ Ll¡ qm¡z ¢pj¾Vl j§mÉ¢i¢š L¢j¢Vl p¤f¡¢lnl f¢lfË¢ra Na 10-09-02 Cw a¡¢lM ®h¡XÑl ¢cL ¢ecÑne¡ fœ ew- 1(14) j§x h¡Ù¹h¡uex fZÉ/96(Awn-1)/127 Hl j¡dÉj ¢pj¾Vl j§pL Bl¡fk¡NÉ phÑ¢ejÀ j§mÉ 188.00 V¡L¡ ¢eÜ¡Ñ¢la qh jjÑ ¢ecÑn fœ f¡Ju¡ ®NRz ®p L¡lZ fË¢a 50 ®L¢S hÉ¡Nl j§mÉ 188.00 V¡L¡l e£Q Ae¤j¡cel ®L¡e AhL¡n ®eCz a¡C ay¡cl Bhce NËqe Ll¡ qm¡ e¡z ¢hi¡N£u LjÑLaÑ¡ La«ÑL Ae¤j¡¢ca j§mÉC a¡cl j§pL fËc¡el ¢ecÑn fËc¡e Ll¡ qm¡z
(®j¡x Sýl¦m qL)
13. The VAT Appellate Tribunal, later affirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner relating to fixing the price but considering the findings of the commissioner on the following terms:
S¡a£u l¡Sü ®h¡XÑl Bcn à¡l¡ N¢Wa j§mÉ ¢i¢š fkÑ¡m¡Qe¡ L¢j¢V La«ÑL p¤f¡¢lnL«a fË¢ahÉ¡N ¢pj¾Vl phÑ¢ejÀ j§pL Bl¡fk¡NÉ j§mÉ ¢i¢š 188/- V¡L¡ Ae¤k¡u£ pw¢nÔÖY~ ¢hi¡N£u LjÑLaÑ¡ j§mÉ ¢edÑ¡lZ L¢lu¡ ®k Bcn fËc¡e L¢lu¡Re Hhw EJ² Bcn hq¡m l¡¢Mu¡ ¢h‘ L¢jne¡l ®k Bcn fËc¡e L¢lu¡Re a¡q¡ p¢WLz EJ² Bcn qÙ¹rf Ll¡l ®L¡e L¡lZ ®cM¡ k¡u e¡z AhØb¡d£e Aœ Bf£m e¡j”¤l qChz
Aœ Bf£m ®c¡alg¡p§œ e¡j”¤l Ll¡ qCmz L¢jne¡l, L¡ØVjp, H„¡CS J iÉ¡V Y¡L¡ (c¢re), Y¡L¡ La«ÑL fËcš Bcn 4/H(26) n¡q ¢pj¾Y~ Cä¡/j§mÉ Ae¤x/®VL/2002 /4515, a¡¢lM 10-9-2002 hq¡m l¡M¡ qCmz
(L¡S£ nq£c¤m qL)
14. Therefore, from the aforesaid observations we find that the considerations made the VAT Appellate Tribunal and commissioner are quite inconsistent and contradictory to that of the observations made by the Deputy Commissioner.
15. Section 5(7) of the Value Added Tax Act, 1991 (in short, the Act) allows the Board to fix price, VAT in special cases only and that must be done through gazette notification. According to sub-rule 7 of rule 3 of the Rules, the Commissioner may fix the price as per recommendation of base value Review Committee constituted by the Board. Therefore, the VAT authority cannot fix the base value according to its sweet will and it is only the manufacturer who can fix the actual price. If the price declared by the appellant is supported by the documents and as per law, the VAT authority without verifying the market and conducting any investigation still cannot fix the price.
16. In the case of BOC Bangladesh Ltd. vs National Board of Revenue and others 67 DLR (AD)-372 held:
Value Added Tax Act (XXII of 1991)
Section 5(7) of the Ain allows the Board to fixing price, VAT in special cases only and that must be done through gazette notification.
Value Added Tax Rules, 1991
The Commissioner may fix the price as per recommendation of base value Review Committee constituted by the Board. The VAT authority cannot fix the base value according to its sweet will and it is only the manufacturer who can fix the actual price. If the price declared by the appellant is supported by the documents and as per law, the VAT authority without verifying the market and conducting any investigation still cannot six the price.
Value Added Tax Rules, 1991
Because of failure to provide any objection within 10 working days of receipt of the price declaration it shall be deemed that the VAT authorities had no objection regarding the price declaration according to the proviso to sub-rule (3) of rule 3 and the appellant is entitled to pay VAT as per price declaration.
Value Added Tax Rules, 1991
Sub-rule (3) of rule 3 provides that VAT authorities are required to intimate in writing to the VAT registered person their objection, if any, regarding the price declaration within 10 working days of receiving the price declaration.
17. In the case in hand, the VAT authority did not follow the procedure laid down in section 5(7) of the Act and Sub-Rule(7) of rule 3 of the Rules 1991 and therefore, the price fixed by the authority is not sustainable in law.
18. Moreover the impugned order in its entirety is not well founded in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are the correct exposition of the laws and facts. We have gone through the decisions as referred by him. We are in respectful agreement with the principles enunciated therein, and the same is quite applicable in the instant case. Therefore, we are inclined to accept his submissions. On the Contrary we failed to discover any merit in the submissions advanced by the learned Deputy Attorney General.
19. In the light of discussions made above and the preponderant judicial views emerging out of the authories referred to above, we are of the view that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmities. Thus the Rule Nisi having merit succeeds.
20. In view of foregoing narrative the Rule is made absolute. The impugned order and decision dated 12.06.2003 (Annexure-F) passed by the respondent No.1 vide Nothi No. CEVT/CASE (VAT) DHAKA-92/2002 and communicated to the petitioner on dated 24.7.2003 affirming the order bearing Nothi No. 4/A(26)Shah Cement/Mulla Anu: /Tek/ 2002/4515(3) dated 10.9.2002 passed by the respondent No.2, and communicated to the petitioner on 10.9.2002 (Annexure-D) annexed to the writ petition fixing the price of the cement is hereby declared to have been made without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Office is directed to send down the record and to communicate the order at once.