COMMISSIONER OF TAXES Vs. MULLICK BRO­THERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition by the respondents arises out of a judgment of this Division in Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1978. The appellant firm declared excess income on 15.7.69 in terms of Martial Law Regulation No. 32, known as Income Tax (Correction of Return and False Declaration) Regulation dated 15.4.69 and the excess income declared by the appellant fish was processed by the Processing Committee and it was determined by the Committee in full agreement with Managing Partner and the authorised representative on 10.11.69 The appellant firm filed a petition under Article 102 of the Constitution calling in question the demand of arrear tax by respondent No.1. on 31.1.1974 in respect of the declaration of excess income on the grounds that an Administrative Review Application before the Central Board of Revenue was filed bat the result of the said application was not communicated, and that the demand on the assessment under ins said regulation it invalid, became after the emergence of Bangladesh, M. L. R. N.32 of 1969 ceased to be an existing law, as it does not come within the definition of an existing law. The High Court Division replied to both the contention and discharged the rub. Thereafter, by special leave the appeal was filed and this Court by its judgment allowed the appeal holding that the arrear tax assessed against the firm not being a Government debt before emergence of Bangladesh is not recoverable by any process of law. This Division observed:

(2.) In this view of the matter, the demand notices were declared to be of no legal authority. The Revenue then filed the review petition and it was argued that the assessment was completed before the Liberation of Bangladesh and it became a debt to the Government then functioning in Bangladesh and in view of section 1(b) of the General Clauses Act as amended by President's Order No.147 of 1972, it became a Government debt and so realizable from the Assessee-respondent. The true imports of legal position were not considered in the judgment of this Division so it is to be reviewed.

(3.) Mr.T. S. Khan learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue canvassed that the assessment was an agreed assessment as contemplated by M.L. R. No. 32 of 1969 and the assessee and his lawyer agreed to the assessment and demand note was issued on 29.11.69. He placed the entire order-sheet before this Court at the time of hearing which was placed before this Court on the previous occasion. In view of the important nature of the question it will be useful to place on record the entire order-sheet. Date Event