IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION NO. 106 OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

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

And

IN THE MATTER OF: John Anisul Bahar Cooper

.... Petitioner

-Vs-

The Government of Bangladesh and others. ....Respondents.

Mr. Hasan Mohammad Reyad, Advocate

.... For the Petitioner.

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

... For the Respondents-government.

Heard on 30.01.2024 and 06.02.2024 Judgment on 11.02.2024.

Present:

Mrs. 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 impugned order No. 15/Mushok/2013 dated 08.12.2013 issued under Nothi No. 4/Mushak/8(20)Cooprs/Bichar/2013/766 by the Commissioner, Customs, Excise and VAT Commissionerate, Dhaka

(North) [respondent No. 02], should not be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

At the time of issuance of the Rule further operation of the impugned demand dated 08.12.2013 was stayed by this Court for a prescribed period.

Facts, relevant for disposal of the Rule, in short, are that the petitioner is a businessman engaged in the business of bakery products in the name and style “M/S Cooper Cake and pastry”. In course of business, the petitioner obtained VAT registration certificate bearing No. 5111018858 from the concerned VAT office under the Value Added Tax Act, 1991 (in short, the Act, 1991) for the purpose of payment VAT and since then he has been paying VAT regularly with satisfaction of the VAT Authority.

Suddenly, the office of the respondent No. 2 entered into the petitioner’s one of outlet situated at Maskat Plaza, Uttara, Dhaka and seized the business and commercial document by issuing Mushak Chalan-5. After auditing of those documents, the audit team found that huge VAT was evaded by the petitioner and accordingly started an Oniom Case No. 10 of 2013 dated 17.07.2017.

Pursuant to the said Oniom Case, a proceeding had been initiated by the respondent No. 2 issuing show cause notice under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1991 dated 26.08.2013 contending inter alia that the Central Intelligence Cell (CIC) upon audit of the seized documents it was deducted that the petitioner evaded VAT for the period of January, 2005 to December, 2005 amounting to Tk. 24,34,748/-, January, 2006 to December, 2006 to the tune of Tk.29,75,809/-, January, 2007 to December, 2007 to the tune of Tk. 2,21,435/- (January, 2005 to December, 2007) total Tk. 56,31,992/-. By the said notice, the petitioner was asked to pay the said demanded amount and also asked appear before the authority for hearing by filing written objection.

On receipt thereto, the petitioner replied to the said notice denying all the material allegations so made in the notice and prayed for exoneration him from the allegation of evaded VAT stated in the notice. The respondent No. 2 upon hearing the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record mad