(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Zinat Ara J
Kazi Md Ejarul Haque
Akondo J
Gopal Biri Factory Limited ……………Petitioner
vs
Commissioner Customs, Excise & VAT Khulna and others ………… Respondents
Judgment
March 6th, 2017
Value Added Tax Act (XXII of 1991)
Sections 37 and 55
For unpaid or less paid VAT, notice has to be issued within five years mentioning the amount of VAT demanded in the notice for show cause. The notice ought to have been issued under Section 55 of the Act demanding unpaid VAT from the petitioner, if there be any and not under Section 37 of the Act which is a provision relating to offences and punishment . …… (11 & 14)
Abu Reza Md Quyum Khan with Ali Akbor Khan, and Bhuiya Alamgir Hossain Advocates-For the Petitioner.
Israt Jahan, DAG-For Respondent No.1.
Judgment
Zinat Ara J : In this Rule Nisi, the petitioner has called in question the legality of the notice as contained in bw_ ??-???? /? (??) ?? ?????/????? ???? ????? ?????/???/????? wewo/m`i/14/3353 dated 3-11-2004 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) issued under the signature of respondent No.1, Commissioner, Customs. Excise and VAT Commissionerate, Khulna.
2. Petitioner- Gopal Biri Factory Limited (Company, in short) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The Company has been manufacturing Biri in its factory and has been paying g~j¨ ms‡hvRb Ki (shortly, VAT) to the Government. On 3-11-2014, respondent No, 1, the Commissioner, Customs, Excise and VAT Commissionerate, Khulna (hereinafter stated as the Commissioner) issued a notice under Section 37(2) of the g~j¨ ms‡hvRb Ki (hereinafter stated as the VAT Act) asking the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner for violating the provision of the VAT Act and also directing the petitioner to give reply within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice. In the notice, respondent No.1 demanded unpaid VAT.
But, prior to issuance of that notice, no notice was issued under Section 55(1) of the VAT Act demanding unpaid VAT. Therefore, the impugned notice under Section 37 of the VAT Act is unlawful.
3. Ms Israt lahan, the learned Deputy Attorney-General with Mr. Swarup Kanti Deb, the learned Assistant Attorney-General, have filed Vokalatnama on behalf of respondent No.1 to contest the Rule. But respondent No.1 has not filed any affidavit-in-Opposition controverting or denying the statements made in the writ petition.
4. Mr Abu Reza Md Quyum Khan, the learned Advocate for the petitioner appearing with Mr Ali Akbor Khan and Mr Bhuiya Alamgir Hossain, takes us through the writ petition, the impugned notice, the relevant provisions of Sections 37 and 55 of the VAT Act and submits that from the impugned notice, it is evident that notice has been issued under Section 37 of the VAT Act. But, from the contents of the notice, it is clear that the notice has been issued demanding unpaid VAT.
He next submits that for demanding unpaid VAT, the VAT Authority has to issue notice under Section 55 of the VAT Act. But, without doing so, the notice has been issued under Section 37 of the VAT Act, which is relating to evasion of VAT and therefore, the impugned notice is apparently illegal and liable to be struck down.
5. In reply, Ms Israt Jahan, the learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing with Mr Swarup Kanti Deb, the learned Assistant Attorney-General on behalf of respondent No.1, contends that the notice has only been issued by the VAT Authority and the petitioner could have taken this ground before the VAT Authority by giving a reply to it. But, without doing so, the petitioner has directly challenged the notice issued under Section 37 of the VAT Act.
6. However, the learned Deputy Attorney-General, on examination of the impugned notice, admitted that the notice has been issued demanding unpaid VAT and the words “evasion of VAT” have not been mentioned in the notice.
7. In view of the arguments, as advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Attorney-General, the sole question to be decided in this Rule is the legality of the impugned notice dated 3-11-2014 (Annexure-A to the writ petition).
8. To decide the merit of the impugned notice, it is necessary to examine the impugned notice. For better understanding, the relevant portion of the impugned notice is quoted hereinafter:-
“???? ????????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ?????????? ???? ??????? ??????
????? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ??/???? ??? ??-?-???? ?????
????????? ???? ? ??????? ????? ????? ?”???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ??????????? ???? ??? ??, ?????????? ????? ? ???????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ??/????/????, ????? ? ?-?-???? ????? ? ???? ???????? ???????? ???? ??????? ??? ?% ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ? ?? ???-??? ????/???-????, ?????? ? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ????????????? ?????-?? ????????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????, ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????????? ????-???? ??? ????-???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????????? ???? ???? ??,??,??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??(?) ??????? ????? ?% ???? ??? ??,??,??? ???? ??? ?,??,??,??? ???? ??????????
?? ???????? ???? ????????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???, ???? ?? ???? ? ?????? ?(?), ?(?), ?(?), ?(?) ??? ???? ????????, ???? ?? ???? ??(?), ??(?) ? ??(?) ??????? ?-??? ?????? ?????¯’?? ???????? ??? ? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???, ???? ?? ???? ??(?) ??????? ??????? ????¯’? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? (??) ????? ????? ? ??????? ????????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ? ????? ???? ????????? ???????? ?????? ??? ??? ????????? ?????? ???? ????” (Underlined, emphasis supplied)
9. Thus, it is evident that the notice has been issued for demanding unpaid VAT.
10. Now, let us examine the relevant provision of Section 55 of the VAT Act, which is relevant to decide the merit of the impugned notice. For better understanding, the provision of Section 55 of the VAT Act is quoted hereinafter : —
“??? ??????? ? ?? ???????? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ? ?? ????? — (?) ?????????? ??? ???????? ?? ???????????? ??????? ?? ????????? ?? ??? ????? ??????????? ?? ????????????? ????? ???????, ???????? ???? ?? ?? ??-???? (?) ? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ? ?? ??? ????????? ?????, ????????? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ??????Ñ
(?) ????? ?????? ?? ??, ?????????, ????? ?????? ?? ? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???,
(?) ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??, ?????????, ????? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??????,
(?) ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ??, ??????? ?????, ?????? ?????, ?????? ?????, ???????? ????? ? ?? (???? ???? ??????) ??????????? ?? ??????,
(?) ????????? ????????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ??, ?????????, ????? ?????? ?? ? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??? ??????,
?????????? ???? ????????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??, ????????? , ????? ?????? ?? ? ??????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ???? (?) ?????? ????? ????????? ????? ?????? ?? ????????? ????? ??????, ?????? ???????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????, ????? ???????? ???????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?
“??? ???? ???? ??, ??? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ??-???? (?) ?? ??? (?), (?), (?), (?), (?), (?) ? (?) ?? ???? ????? ????? ????, ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?????????, ?? ?????????, ????????? ???????? ???????? ?? ??-????? ???????? ? (????) ???? ???????? ???????? ???? ???
(?) ????????? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??, ?????????, ????? ?????? ?? ? ??????? ?????, ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??, ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???-?? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ???- ?? ??????? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ?????
(?) ??-???? (?) ?? ???? ????? ? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ??-????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ????????? ???? ????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ????? ???? ; ????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????? ????? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? (???? ???) ????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??-????? ???? ????? ????? ??????? (???? ???) ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ? ???? ??????, ???????????, ????????????????? ??????? ????? ???????, ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????????, ????????????? ????? ? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ????????
(?) ??-???? (?) ? ???? ????? ? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??, ??? ??????? ????????? ???? ??????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?”?? ?????? ????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ???? ? ???????? ???? ??????? ????? ? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ?
??? ???? ???? ??, ?????? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ???”
(Underlined, to supply emphasis)
11. Thus, it transpires that for unpaid or less paid VAT notice has to be issued within five years mentioning the amount of VAT demanded in the notice for show cause. On the other hand, Section 37 of the VAT Act is a provision relating to offences and punishment as described in Section 37 of the VAT Act e.g. for submission of false challan patra, for non-submission of challan patra, evasion of VAT, etc.
12. From the above quoted impugned notice it is evident that the demand notice was issued for ????????? ???? ??? ???????? ??¨. Moreover, it is mentioned in the notice that
?????????? ????? ? ???????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????.
13. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Mushak Challan has to be submitted by realization of VAT by the persons, who was selling locally produced tobacco and other ingredient for manufacturing of Biri and it was not the responsibility of the petitioner to issue Mushak Challan. Mushak Challan has to be given by the petitioner at the time of selling of Biri after manufacture thereof. The . learned Deputy Attorney-General has not denied the aforesaid legal proposition of law.
14. Thus, it is evident that the impugned notice ought to -have been issued under Section 55 of the VAT Act demanding unpaid VAT from the petitioner, if there be. any. But the impugned notice has been issued under Section 37(3) of the VAT Act for commission of offences under the VAT Act.
15. Thus, considering the fact and circumstances of the case, vis-a-vis the law, we find merit and force in the submissions of Mr ARM Quyum Khan, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and we find no merit in the submissions of Ms Israt lahan, the learned Deputy AttorneyGeneral.
16. In view of the above, it appears that the impugned notice suffers from legal infirmity.
17. In the result, the Rule succeeds.
18. Accordingly, the -Rule is made absolute.
19. The impugned notice as continued in bw_ bs-4_©/G(12)/11/f¨vU/Awbqg g~mK duvwK gvgjv/AvUK †Mvcvj wewo/m`i/14/3353 dated 3-11-2004 issued under the signature of respondent No.1, Commissioner, Customs, Excise and VAT Commissionerate, Khulna is, hereby, declared to have been issued without lawful authority and be of no legal effect.
20. However, the concerned VAT Authority is at liberty to issue fresh notice in accordance with law.
Communicate the judgment to respondent No. 1 at once.
