IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

Writ Petition No. 13337 of 2019 In the matter of:

An application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People‟s Republic of Bangladesh

-And-

In the matter of:

Rangs Electronics Limited

...Petitioner -Versus-

Director General, Nirikkha, Goyenda-O-Tadonto Adhidoptor, Mullya Sangjojon Kor, Dhaka and others

... Respondents

Ms. Nahid Mahtab, Senior Advocate

... For the petitioner Mr. Pratikar Chakma, DAG with

Mr. Humayun Kabir,

Ms. Farzana Rahman Shampa,

Mr. Masud Rana Mohammad Hafiz and,

Mr. Ali Akbor Khan, AAGs

... For respondent No. 5

Judgment on: 22.02.2024

Present

Mr. Justice Muhammad Khurshid Alam Sarkar

And

Mr. Justice Sardar Md. Rashed Jahangir

Sardar Md. Rashed Jahangir, J:

The Rule 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 realization of Tk. 12,49,94,153/- as VAT by the respondent No.1-4 in violation of sections 26(1), and

26Ka(3) and (4), 51 and 55 of the Value Added Tax Act, 1991, General Order No. 14/Mushak/2015 dated 30.06.2015 read with Chapter 10.02(K), 11.01 1 11.02(22) of the “j§mÉ pw k¡Se Ll ¢el£r¡ (A¢XV) jÉ¡e¤ um” should not be declared to have been done without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and also as to why the respondents should not be directed to refund/adjust the VAT amounting to Tk.12,49,94,153/- in accordance with law and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Facts relevant for disposal of the Rule are that the petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing electronic products and trading of imported electronic items in Bangladesh, having been registered under section 15 of the Value Added Tax Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as „the VAT Act‟) for the purpose of paying VAT . It is stated that that the petitioner is paying all Government taxes including value added tax regularly.

The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have been authorized by respondent No.2 (on behalf of the respondent No.1) vide nothi Nos. 5(10)¢ex N¡xaxAx/26- d¡l¡ fË u¡N-242/2015/4371 a¡¢lMx-26/09/2018¢MËx and 5(10)¢ex N¡xaxAx/26-d¡l¡ fË u¡N-242/2015/4372, a¡¢lMx- 26/09/2018¢MËx for the purpose of conducting inspection including search and seizure, within the meaning of the provision of section 26 and 34 of the VAT Act. It is further stated that the aforesaid respondent Nos. 3 and 4 along with their teams after conducting inspection and search, seized some documents, CPU, software from the head office and sales centre of petitioner-company; thereafter the respondents on 27.09.2018 upon preparing Mushak-5 seized the aforesaid documents, CPU and software for the purpose of ascertaining the VAT payable liabilities of petitioner-company. Thereafter, the petitioner through

a representation dated 10.10.2018, before the respondent No.1, offered some explanation and its apology. It is further stated that the aforesaid inspection team along with the respondent Nos.1 and 2 asked the officer concerned of petitioner-company to appear and explain their conduct and after discussion (meeting) as per the verbal direction of respondents, the petitioner deposited Tk.12,50,00,000/-(twelve crore fifty lac), in the respective Code specified for Value Added Tax, through Treasury Challans

as alleged VAT liabilities of the petitioner upon observing all the legal formalities .

It is further stated that the petitioner-company on being threatened and pressurized by respondents compelled to deposit the afo