IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH                                 HIGH COURT DIVISION

                     (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION NO.14234 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF:

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

And

IN THE MATTER OF:

Md. Faysal Molla

............ Petitioner        -vs-

National Board of Revenue and others. ..................Respondents

And

 Mr. Munshi Moniruzzaman, Advocate with Mr. Sakib Rezwan Kabir, Advocate and

 Ms. Shuchira Hossain, Advocate

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

Mr. Samarendra Nath Biswas, D.A.G. with

Mr. Md. Abul Kalam Khan (Daud), A.A.G. and

Mr. Md. Modersher Ali Khan (Dipu), A.A.G.

                         ....For the Respondents-government.

Heard on: 07.05.2024 and Judgment on: 15.05.2024

Present:

Mrs. Justice Farah Mahbub.

 And

Mr. Justice Muhammad Mahbub Ul Islam

Farah Mahbub, J:

This Rule Nisi was issued under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the action of the respondent Nos.2-4 in locking the Business

Identification Number (BIN) of the petitioner bearing No. 003070923-0304

under Reference No.7/vat (226)/ dapucom /it/ binlock/2022/628 (Annexure-D)

without any demand pending against the petitioner in violation of Section 95

of the Value Added Tax and Supplementary Duty Act, 2012, should not be declared to have been done without lawful authority and hence, of no legal

effect and also, as to why the respondent concerned should not be directed to

unlock  the  Business  Identification  Number  (BIN)  of  the  petitioner  in accordance with law.

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

order passed  under Reference No.7/vat (226)/ dapucom /it/ binlock/2022/628 (Annexure-D)  by  the  respondent  concerned  locking  the   Business Identification Number (BIN) of the petitioner bearing No.003070923-0304,

was stayed by this Court for a prescribed period.

Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Free

Trade International, who is engaged in the business of importing different

items including textile dyes and chemicals and is selling those products in

the local market on retail/wholesale basis.

   The petitioner is enlisted with the Value Added Tax Authority having Business Identification Number (BIN) No. 003070923-0304 issued by the respondent  No.2.   In the course  of his business  the petitioner has been regularly  submitting  the  input-output  co-efficient  to  the  office  of  the Divisional  Officer  concerned  and  the  same  was  duly  accepted  by  the respondent No.3.

 On 29.06.2022, the respondent No.3 vide Nothi No.4/®p¡x ¢hx/j§mÉ ®O¡oZ¡ /461/h¡x Bjc¡¢eL¡lL/2021/2102 (Annexure-B)  directed the petitioner to

submit revised input output co-efficient (Musak-4.3) to the office of the concerned respondents within a prescribed period. On the same date vide Nothi No.4/®p¡x ¢hx/jm§É ®O¡oZ¡ /461/h¡x Bjc¡¢eL¡lL/2021/2103 (Annexure-B-1) said  respondent  directed  the  petitioner  to  submit  respective  documents/ informations  in  Musak-6.1,  6.2  and  6.3  as  well  as  related  banking transactions more than Tk. 1,00,000/- (Taka one lac) within a prescribed period.

    Since the value of the goods did not increase more than 7.5% and that the petitioner did not procure any new goods as such, he was not in a position to submit revised input out co-efficient (Musak-4.3). However, later on  03.07.2022  the  petitioner  submitted  Musak-6.1  and  Musak-6.2  and Musak 6.3 to the respondent No.4 for consideration. After submitting the aforesaid documents, the respondent concerned did not make any demand upon the petitioner and as such, no demand in respect of evasion of VAT was pending against him. Rather, in the course of business the petitioner imported 3(three) consignments of textile pigment dyes. However, when effort was being made to have those goods released the online system of the respective  Customs  House  was  not accepting  the  BIN  of  the  petitioner. Subsequently,  he  came  to  learn  on  collecting  report  from  the  office concerned that the BIN of the petitioner had been locked by the office of the respondent  No.2 with  reference to  Nothi  being  No.7-VAT(226).  In the given context, he filed an application to the respondent No.3 on 31.10.2022 with  request  to  unlock  the  BIN  on  the  ground  that  no  demand  to  his knowledge was pending and that for being unable to have the goods released

which were imported under separate Bills of Entry he was facing demurrage every day, but there was no response. 

Under  the  compelling  circumstances,  the  petitioner  again  filed  an application to the respondent No.2 on 15.11.2022 with request to unlock the BIN  and  to  release  the  goods  which  were  imported  by  him  under  the respective Bills of Entry, but there was no response. Hence, the application.

Ms.  Shuchira  Hossain,  the  learned  Advocate  appearing  for  the petitioner  submits  that  Section  95  of  the  Value  Added  Tax  and Supplementary  Duty  Act,  2012  (in  short,  the  Act,  2012)  provides  the procedure for recovering “h­Lu¡ Ll” . However, for realization of “h­Lu¡ Ll” the Commissioner concerned has the authority to lock the BIN of the person concerned  under Section  95(5)(gha) of the said  Act,  2012. But prior  to compliance  of  Section  95(2)  of  the  Act,  2012  no  action  under  Section 95(5)(gha) of the said Act can be taken. In other words, she submits, there has to be a pending demand. In the present case, she submits, the BIN of the petitioner  has  been  locked  by  the  VAT  authority  without  any  pending demand against the petitioner. As such, locking the respective BIN of the petitioner by the respondents is absolutely illegal.

On the face of the said assertion of the petitioner the respondents concerned  has  not  come  forward  with  any  affidavit  in  opposition  with relevant documents to show that prior to locking the Business Identification Number (BIN) of the petitioner any demand whatsoever under the Act, 2012 was/is pending against him.

In view of the above context let us first have a look at Section 95 of the Value Added Tax and Supplementary Duty Act, 2012, which is quoted as under:

“৯৫। বেকয়া কর আদায়।–(১) মূসক, স  ূরক     , টানও ভার কর, সু,দঅথদ    বা জিরমানার

Emphasis given

কান অথ    খলািপ করদাতা কতৃক   েদয় হইেল, কিমশনার উ  বেকয়া কর  খলািপ করদাতার িনকট হইেত আদায় কিরবার কায    ম   হণ কিরেবন ।

(২) বেকয়া কর   েদয় বিলয়া গণ  হইেব, যিদ-

(ক) বেকয়া কেরর পিরমাণ দািখলপে    েদয় িহসােব   দিশত হয় এবং উহা অপিরেশািধত থােক;

(খ)  খলািপ করদাতার উপর জািরকৃ ত কর িনধার  ণী  না টেশ বেকয়া কেরর পিরমাণ   দিশত হয়

এবং   খলািপ  করদাতা   না টেশ  উি  িখত  সবে শষ  তািরেখ  উহা পিরেশাধ  কিরেত  ব থ  হন;  বা

(গ)  এই  আইেনর  অধীন   কান  কায    ম  িন  ি  র  ফেল   কান  বেকয়া  কর    েদয়  হয়।

(৩)  উপ-ধারা  (২)  এর  অধীন   খলািপ  করদাতা  কতৃক  বেকয়া  কর    েদয়  হইেল,  উহা আদােয়র লে    কিমশনার  খলািপ করদাতার বরাবের  না টশ    রণ কিরেবন।

(৪) বেকয়া কর আদােয়র কাযধ ারায়, বেকয়া কেরর দায় ও পিরমাণ   মােণর     ে  , উ   না টশ

চূড় া   ামাণ  দিলল (conclusive proof ) বিলয়া গণ  হইেব।

(৫) বেকয়া কর আদােয়র     ে  কিমশনার িন  বিণত কায    ম   হণ কিরেবন, যথা:

(ক)   খলািপ  করদাতার   কান  অথ    কান  আয়কর ,     ,  মূসকবা  আবগাির কতৃপে  র

িনয়  ণাধীন থািকেল, উহা হইেত িনধাি  রত প  িতেত বেকয়া কর কতন কিরেবন;

(খ)  খলািপ করদাতার অথ অপর  কান ব      বা সহেযাগী বা আিথক   িত ান বা ব াংেকর িনকট থািকেল, উ  ব      বা ব াংেক পিরেশাধ কিরবার জন  িনেদশ   দান কিরেত পািরেবন;

(গ)  খলািপ করদাতার ব বসা অ  ন হইেত  কান পণ  বা  সবার সরবরাহ বে  র আেদশ   দান কিরেত পািরেবন;

(ঘ)  খলািপ করদাতার আমদািনকৃ ত পণ  খালাস বে  র লে      ল্ক ভবেনর িবল অব এি  (Bill

of Entry)       য়াকরণ িসে  েম ব বসা সনা  করণ সংখ া ব  (lock) কিরেত পািরেবন;

(ঙ)  খলািপ করদাতার ব াংক িহসাব িনধাি  রত প  িতেত অপিরচালনেযাগ্É (freeze ) কিরবার আেদশ   দান কিরেত পািরেবন;

(চ)  খলািপ করদাতার ব বসা অ  ন তালাব  কিরয়া রািখবার আেদশ   দান কিরেত পািরেবন বা িনধাি  রত সময় ও প  িতেত তালাব  কিরেত পািরেবন;

(ছ)  খলািপ করদাতার  যেকান   াবর স  ি      াক বা অ  াবর স  ি  জë কিরয়া িনধাি  রত

প  িতেত িব  েয়র মাধ েম বেকয়া কর আদায় কিরেত পািরেবন; বা

(জ)  খলািপ করদাতার  কান  জ  াদােরর িনকট হইেত িনধাি  রত শত  ও প  িতেত জামানত   হণ কিরেত পািরেবন।

”

On a plain reading of the above it appears that the authority concerned is empowered to lock BIN of the person concerned in order to recover any pending demand of VAT, supplementary duties, turn over tax, penalty or fine in the manner as prescribed therein.

The respondents, however, did not come forward with any affidavit in opposition  with  relevant  documents  controverting  the  assertion  of  the petitioner that no demand is pending against him.

 In view of the position of law and facts, we have no manner of doubt to  find  that  locking  the  Business  Identification  Number  (BIN)  of  the petitioner  bearing  No.003070923-0304   under  Reference  No.7/vat  (226)/ dapucom /it/ binlock/2022/628 (Annexure-D) without any demand pending against him is unlawful for having been done in violation of Section 95 of the Value Added Tax and Supplementary Duty Act, 2012.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find substance in the instant Rule.

 In the result, the Rule is made absolute.

The  action  of  the  respondent  Nos.2-4  in  locking  the  Business Identification Number (BIN) of the petitioner bearing No. 003070923-0304 vide  Order  under  Reference  No.7/vat(226)/dapucom/it/binlock/2022/628 (Annexure-D)  without  any  demand  pending  against  him  in  violation  of Section 95 of the Value Added Tax and Supplementary Duty Act, 2012 is

hereby declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and hence, of no legal effect.

There will be no order as to costs.

Communicate the judgment and order to the respondents concerned at

once.

Muhammad Mahbub Ul Islam, J:

I agree.

montu (B.O.)