IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION NO. 9989 OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under Article 102(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

And

IN THE MATTER OF:

Great Wall Ceramic Industries Ltd.

.... Petitioner

-Vs-

National Board of Revenue Represented by its Chairman, NBR Bhaban, Segunbagicha, Dhaka and others

....Respondents.

Mr. Munshi Moniruzzaman with

Mr. Sakib Rezwan Kabir and

Mr. S.M. Shamsur Rahman, Advocates

......... For the Petitioner

Ms. Nasima K. Hakim, Deputy Attorney General, Ms. Tahmina Polly, with Mr. Elin Imon Saha, and Mr. Ziaul Hakim and Md Hafizur Rahman, Assistant Attorney Generals

........For the Respondents-government

Heard on 21.11.2023, 28.11.2023 & 06.12.2023 Judgment on 08.01.2024

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Iqbal Kabir

and

Mr. Justice S.M. Maniruzzaman

S.M. Maniruzzaman, J:

In this Rule Nisi, issued under Article 102 of the

Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, the respondents have been called upon to show cause as to why the

proceeding initiated under e¢b ew- 4/j§pL/8(12) ®NËV Ju¡m ¢pl¡¢jLp/ A¢euj/¢hQ¡l/2013/1788 dated 06.08.2014 by the respondent No. 2

for alleged evasion of Value Added Tax (VAT) and supplementary

duty (SD) by the petitioner during the period of 2011-2012 (Annexure-G) should not be declared to have been passed without

lawful authority and is of no legal effect and/or such other or

further order of orders passed as to this Court may deem fit and

proper.

At the time of issuance of the Rule the operation of the impugned

order dated 06.08.2014 (Annexure-G) was stayed by this Court for a prescribed period.

Facts, in brief, for disposal of the Rule, are that the petitioner is a

private limited company incorporated under the Company Act, 1994 and

is engaged in the business of manufacturing “Ceramic Wares” by using imported raw materials and sells the same in the local market. In course

of business, the petitioner obtained VAT registration bearing No. 5141027541 from the concerned VAT office under the Value Added Tax

Act, 1991 (in short, the Act, 1991) and since then it has been paying

VAT regularly.

Suddenly an audit team of the respondent No. 5, Central Intelligence Cell (CIC) visited the petitioner’s Head Office on 29.01.2013 and seized its commercial and business documents. After

audit, the said team started an Oniom Case bearing No. 06/Musak/2013

dated 08.06.2013. Pursuant to the said oniom case, the respondent No. 2 [Commissioner, Customs, Excise and VAT (Dhaka North) Commissionerate, Dhaka] issued a show cause notice upon the petitioner on 08.07.2013 contending inter alia that as per audit report of the CIC the petitioner evaded VAT and SD to the tune of Tk. 3,75,00,000/-, but such amount was already paid by the petitioner. By the said notice it was further asked to the petitioner as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 37(2) of the Act, 1991. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 further issued another show cause notice pursuant to the same allegation and Oniom Case bearing No. 08/Musak/2013 dated 27.06.2013 asking the petitioner show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed for evading VAT to the tune of Tk. 1,25,00,000/- but which amount was also paid by the petitioner before issuance of the show cause notice (Annexure-D).

On receipt both the notices, the petitioner replied thereof on 21.07.2013 contending inter alia that the different amount which has/had been detected between the market price and the declared price of the petitioner and those contexts no VAT and SD were alleged to have been evaded by the petitioner but which was paid by the petitioner. Pursuant to the audit of the CIC the petitioner did not committed any offence as penalized under Section 37(2) of the Act, 1991 (Annexure-E). Further on 02.01.2014 the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No. 5 stating that the alleged VAT and SD to the tune of Tk. 9,19,53,31