ANOWAR STEEL MILLS LTD. Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for review of the. impugned judgment and order dated 30-4-2000 passed by this Court in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 44 of 1995 dismissing the same filed against the judgment and order of the High Court Division discharging the Rule in Writ Petition No. 2067 of 1994.

(2.) The petitioner, Messrs Anwar Steel Mills Limited, filed the writ petition under Article 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh impugning order dated 4-8-1993 imposing value added tax on the manufactured corrugated iron sheets, shortly CI sheets, by the respondent No. 4, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Excise and VAT, Division-4, Dhaka for a declaration that the same has been made without any lawful authority and of no legal effect.

(3.) The petitioner company carries on business in manufacturing of CI sheets from the imported galvanised plain- sheet, shortly, GP, and other inputs required for manufacturing CI Sheets. On 6-9-89 the petitioner's stock of manufactured CI sheets was 6-11-1983 tons. Those were stored in a godown of a Commercial Bank. The petitioner on 23-2-1994 applied to the Joint Collector of Customs for taking of the same in installments without stating that on the date of manufacture of these CI sheets there was no provision for imposing any excise duty or value added tax on CI sheets. The petitioner, however, took delivery of 48.266 tons of CI sheets and the balance 562.917 tong Yen-rained in the godown. The Superintendent of Customs by a letter dated 21-9-1991 asked the petitioner to take delivery of said CI Sheets on payment of valued added tax @ 15%. The petitioner submitted representation to the Collector of Customs, Excise and VAT to permit to take delivery. of the CI sheets without payment of value added tax. Thereafter it took delivery of 150 tons of CI sheets without paying any duty. Respondent No. 4 by a notice asked the petitioner to show cause why value added tax at Tk. 8,21,250 should not be imposed on 150 tons of CI sheets and the petitioner showed cause stating that those goods were manufactured prior to Value Added Tax Act, 1991 came into force. Respondent No. 4, however, by the impugned order imposed value added tax at Taka 8, 21250.