Case Number Parties Short Description 1 Writ Petition 8441/2021 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 05-MAY-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Regent Energy and Power Limited and another vs Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others. It is an admitted position of facts that challenging the impugned order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 the petitioner preferred Customs Appeal No. 170 of 2021 under Section 196A of the Customs Act, 1969. However, in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal a delay of 1(one) month and 19(nineteen) days has occurred due to the reason as stated therein. The Tribunal concerned ultimately dismissed the appeal having not been convinced about the cause of delay so has occasioned while preferring the appeal. The power to condone the delay by the Tribunal is discretionary. However, taking into consideration of the facts that for dismissal of the appeal the petitioner has become non-suited, and also, considering justice, equity and fair play we are inclined to interfere in the instant matter. 2 Writ Petition 10375/2013 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 04-APR-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Mrs. Ummun Naser and others vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramana, Dhaka and others The impugned order dated 19.08.2013 has been issued by the respondent concerned vide Warrant Notice No.87 under Section 202(1)(f) of the Customs Act, 1969 giving direction upon the concerned banks to freeze the respective bank accounts of the petitioners. However, said power of the Customs authority may be authorized if there is pending unpaid duties including other contexts as are prescribed therein. In the instant case, order under Section 2021(1)(f) has been issued by the Commissioner concerned stating, inter-alia, that "প্রতিষ্ঠানটির বার্ষিক নিরীক্ষা ০১.০৩.১৯৯৮ ইং হইতে হালনাগাদ অনিস্পন্ন রয়েছে এবং প্রতিষ্ঠানটি অস্তিত্বহীন। মেসার্স ডেল্টা ডাইং এন্ড ফেব্রিক্স লিঃ, ২৩ নং উত্তর রাজশন, সাভার, ঢাকা অদ্যবধি নিরীক্ষা কাজে দলিলাদি দিয়ে সহযোগীতা করেননি। Said context, as relied upon by the Commissioner towards issuance of the impugned order dated 19.08.2023 under Section 202(1) does not go to show that there was pending duties which the petitioners has failed to pay despite giving direction by the authority concerned. In this regard respondent concerned has also failed to show for any other document whatsoever that pursuant to pending demand of duties said order has been issued. In view of the above position of facts and considering the position of law as provided under Section 202 of the Customs Act, 1969, we find substance in the instant Rule. 3 Writ Petition 1369/2024 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 04-APR-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 M/S. K L Industries vs Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal and another. 4 Writ Petition 618/2024 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 02-APR-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Golden Son Limited vs National Board of Revenue and others. However, a “compliant “প্রতিষ্ঠান” which fulfils the conditions as provided in clause 4(ka), (অ), (আ), and (ই) is entitled to have yearly import entitlement upto 60% of the production capacity of the machineries, which may be extended upto 80% subject to circumstances. After determination of yearly import entitlement under clause 4(kha) if necessity arises to increase the import entitlement for the respective period the authority concerned may do so but upto 80% of the yearly production capacity. In other words, clause 4(ga) is subject to clause 4(kha) which is exercised as an interim measure in case of necessity and the increase of entitlement under clause 4(ga) is in addition to the entitlement given under clause 4(kha). Conversely, if allegations of forgery or illegal removal of goods is proved or there is pending “গুরুতর অনিয়ম মামলা” against any “প্রতিষ্ঠান” its import entitlement cannot be increased in view of clause 6(kha). Clause 7 on the other hand authorizes the respective “প্রতিষ্ঠান” to release the excess raw materials imported in addition to the import entitlement so given either under clause 3 or 4 or 5, be it a compliant or non-compliant “প্রতিষ্ঠান” , upon furnishing bank guarantee provided that said excess quantity so imported for the respective period cannot exceed more than 80% of the yearly production capacity and that upon export of the goods so have been produced with those raw materials the company is allowed to have release of the bank guarantee on submissions of the PRC (Proceed Realization Certificate). 5 Writ Petition 10437/2019 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 02-APR-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Family Corner vs National Board of Revenue and others. In view of the above, when amendment of assessment has been made by the Customs authority invoking power under Section 83A of the Act, 1969 on the count, inter-alia, “পর্যালোচনায় দেখা যায় যে, আলোচ্য চালানের বিপরীতে ব্যাংক কর্তৃক সত্যায়িত দলিলাদির পরিবর্তে আমদানিকারক/তাঁর মনোনীত সিএন্ডএফ এজেন্ট প্রতারণা ও মিথ্যার আশ্রয় নিয়ে ভঁয়া/জাল দলিলাদির মাধ্যমে পণ্যচালানটি খালাস গ্রহণ করেছেন। আলোচ্য চালানে প্রদেয় শুল্ক-করাদির পরিমান ৩২,৬৮,৭৬৪.৪৫ টাকা। অথচ এক্ষেত্রে শুল্ক করাদি পরিশোধ করা হয়েছে ১১,৯৪,০৬৭.৫৩ টাকা। ফলে কম পরিশোধিত শুল্ক করাদি বাবদ ২০,৭৪,৬৯৬.৯২ টাকা রাজস্ব ফাঁকির বিষয়টি প্রমাণিত হয়েছে। ....................” hence, issuing a notice alleging inter alia, “আমদানিকারকের এরূপ কার্যক্রম The Customs Act, 1969 এর Section 32 অনুযায়ী অপরাধ সংঘটিত হয়েছে, যা একই Customs Act এর Section 156 (1) এর Table এর Clause 14 অনুযায়ী শাস্তিযোগ্য।......... .........দাবীকৃত শুল্ক-করাদি বাবদ ২০,৭৪,৬৯৬.৯২ ব্যক্তিগত অর্থদন্ড ৮,০০,০০০.০০ = ২৮,৭৪,৬৯৬.৯২ (আটাশ চুয়াত্তর হাজার ছয়শত ছিয়ানব্বই দশমিক নয় দুই) টাকা The Customs Act, 1969 এর Section-83(A) অনুযায়ী এই পত্র জারীর ৩০ (ত্রিশ) দিনের মধ্যে পরিশোধ করার জন্য নির্দেশ দেয়া হলোz..............Ó is without lawful authority and hence, it has no legal effect, for, Section 83A is meant for amendment of assessment whereas, proceeding under Section 32(2) is initiated on the allegation of misdeclaration or evasion of duties and taxes. Also, making the impugned demand for non-compliance of PSI is without jurisdiction, for, vide Section 25B of the Finance Act, 2013 it was optional for the importers to have their imported goods inspected by a pre-shipment inspection agency before or at the time of shipment of those goods on board or vassal, aircraft or other conveyance. Section 25B is quoted below: 25B. Optional pre-shipment Inspection.- “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it is optional for the importers to have their importable goods inspected by a pre-shipment inspection agency before or at the time of shipment of those goods on board a vessel, aircraft or other conveyance.” 6 Writ Petition 1627/2022 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 02-APR-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 M/s. Anika Traders vs Government of Bangladesh and others. Thus, it is apparent on the face of record that the Customs Authority made final assessment on 18.01.2022 i.e., within 120 working days from the date of receipt of the decision of the NBR. Since decision of the NBR was made on reference Nothi No. ৩৪৫২/ এপি/ সেকশন-৭(বি)/২০-২১ pursuant to the prayer of the petitioner so made on 19.04.2021 for provisional assessment as such, it is now estopped from making assertion otherwise with a view to have the bank guarantee return for alleged violation of Section 81(2) of the Act. At this juncture, Ms. Fahima Barrin, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that since final assessment has already been made an opportunity be given to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal concerned under the Customs Act, 1969 In view of the prayer of the learned Advocate, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the respective forum under the Customs Act, 1969 within 90(ninety) days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Till filing of appeal, the operation of the bank guarantee in question be kept in abeyance. In default, the Customs authority will be at liberty to take necessary steps with regard to bank guarantee in question in due compliance of law. 7 Writ Petition 1670/2023 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 13-MAR-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Syed Mohammad Morshed vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka-1000 and others In the given context and also, considering the object for promulgation of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 we find that justice will better be served by giving direction upon the petitioner to take initiatives towards resolving the issue in question with the respondent-bank within 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and order. If, however, the petitioner fails to take any initiatives to that effect, the respondent-bank is at liberty to proceed in connection with the issue in question in due compliance of law. 8 Writ Petition 7106/2022 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 11-MAR-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Jonoseba Matshajibi Samabay Samity Ltd vs Government of Bangladesh and others In view of the above, the petitioner is now esstopped from making prayer to the respondent No. 1 with representation to extend the lease period for 1431 B.S. upon adjusting lease money of 1426 B.S. on the plea of not being able to enjoy possession thereof for 1426 B.S. Last but not the least, the petitioner has been provided with right to enjoy the fishery in question for 1426-1430 B.S. subject to payment of lease money with VAT and tax for the respective period. From record it appears that the petitioner has paid required lease money with VAT and tax for 1426-1429 B.S. However, no document is produced before this Court till date as to the payment of lease money with VAT and tax for 1430 B.S though to date the petitioner is still enjoying possession thereof pursuant to the order of status quo granted earlier by this Court. 9 Writ Petition 12587/2022 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 11-MAR-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Bangladesh Edible Oil Limited vs National Board of Revenue and others. The petitioner has challenged the impugned final demand dated 05.09.2022 (Annexure-E) issued by the respondent concerned under Section 55(3) of VAT Act, 1991 mainly on the ground that part of the said demand is time barred from 01.01.2016 to 05.07.2017. Vide Section 55(1) of VAT Act 1991 the authority concerned is empowered to make demand for the evaded or less paid VAT within 5(five) years. Since the impugned demand so made for the respective period 01.01.2016 to 05.07.2017 is barred by limitation; hence, making final demand covering the said period is without jurisdiction. 10 Writ Petition 9529/2023 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 11-MAR-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Moheskhali Pourashava represented by the Mayor Moksud Mia vs Bangladesh and others. In view of the above context, the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the respondent No.2 as being the Conservator is to maintain the properties as described in the gazette dated 06.02.2018 (Annexure-2) and in the report dated 07.02.2019 (Annexure-4) respectively. However, fact remains that no clear demarcation has been made in those annexures with regard to the placement of the jetty in question. In view of the said vague and unspecified description of the properties so far the jetty in question is concerned, as contained in Annexure-2 and 4 and also, considering the statements so made by the Assistant Commissioner (Land), Moheshkhali, Cox’s Bazar, makes the issue disputed. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution cannot embark into disputed question of facts. As such, for proper dispensation of justice, this court directs “jq¡f¢lQ¡mL, i¨¢j ®lLXÑ J S¢lf A¢dcçl, ®aSNy¡J, Y¡L¡” to take necessary steps towards survey of the area in question in accordance with law in the presence of the respective contending parties i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 6 and identify its position with clear demarcation keeping in view of Annexures-2 and 4 respectively of the affidavit in opposition, preferrably within 1(one) month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 11 Writ Petition 17710/2017 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 11-MAR-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Mohammad Solaiman vs Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others. It is not disputed by the respondent concerned that in connection with the consignment in question imported by the petitioner covered under the respective bill of entry it has already deposited applicable payment duties and taxes and other charges on the basis of the invoice value, in cash and on furnishing guarantee bearing No. OBL/KTG/BG-026/04 dated 19.09.2004 for the differential amount in connection with writ petition No.5388 of 2004. Considering the stated position of facts, the impugned order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 in Appeal No. (Cus)-176/2017 dismissing the appeal for non-deposit of 25% of the demanded amount under Section 194(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, falls through. 12 Writ Petition 11734/2022 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 07-MAR-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 IIDFC Securities Limited vs National Board of Revenue and others. The petitioner has challenged the impugned final demand dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure-D) issued by the respondent concerned under Section 55(3) of VAT Act, 1991 mainly on the ground that part of the said demand is time barred from 01.01.2015 to 09.02.2017. Vide Section 55(1) of VAT Act 1991 the authority concerned is empowered to make demand for the evaded or less paid VAT within 5(five) years. Since the impugned demand so made for the respective period 01.01.2015 to 09.02.2017 is barred by limitation; hence, making final demand covering the said period is without jurisdiction. 13 Writ Petition 7193/2020 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 07-MAR-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Md. Mosharaf Hossain vs People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Internal Resources Division, Bangladesh Secretariat, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka and others It is an admitted position of fact that challenging the adjudicating order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the respondent No.4, the petitioner as appellant preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka, respondent No.3 under Section 196A of the Customs Act, 1969. However, in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal a delay of 9(nine) months and 20(twenty) days have occurred due to the reason of not being informed within time. The Tribunal concerned ultimately dismissed the appeal having not been convinced about the cause of delay so has occasioned while preferring the appeal. The power to condone the delay by the Tribunal is discretionary. However, taking into consideration of the facts that for dismissal of the appeal the petitioner has become non-suited, and also, considering justice, equity and fair play we are inclined to interfere in the instant matter. 14 Writ Petition 1764/2015 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 04-MAR-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Rahima Akter vs Government of Bangladesh, represented by Secretary, Ministry of Education and others. In the absence of any assertion on behalf of the respondent No.2 now, respondent No.7 on the claim of the petitioner to get MPO at a higher scale and also, having failed to justify its reason in not responding to the representation of the petitioner dated 29.07.2010 (Annexure-E2),so was forwarded earlier by the respondent No.3, within a span of 13 years justifies intervention by this Court to allow the prayer so made in the instant writ petition. 15 Writ Petition 8456/2022 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 28-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Perfetti Van Melle Bangladesh Pvt. Ltd, a private Limited represented by its Managing Director vs Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, P. S. Bandar, Chattogram and others The instant Rule is centering around the issue of passing order by the respondent No.2 on behalf of the respondent No.1 directing the proforma respondent No.4 City Bank Ltd. N.A. to encash the respective bank guarantee earlier furnished by the petitioner in connection with B/E No.C-1704911 dated 24.10.2021. Pending hearing of the Rule, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal concerned under Section 196A of the Customs Act, 1969 in compliance of the direction given earlier by this Court at the time of issuance of the instant Rule. However, with the disposal of the said appeal there remains no cause of action requiring adjudication in the instant Rule. 16 Writ Petition 7585/2023 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 27-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Md. Anisur Rahman-vs-Bangladesh Bank, represented by its Governor, Head Office, Bangladesh Bank Bhaban, P.S. Motijheel, Dhaka The petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking direction upon the Bangladesh Bank to exercise its jurisdiction as contemplated under Sections 45 and 49(1)(Cha) of the Bank Companies Act, 1991 to dispose of his application dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure-E) in connection with the respective loan liabilities. The petitioner has been able to obtain ad-interim order of stay of the auction process in question subject to payment of the respective amount within the prescribed period, but he did not comply with the same. Considering the above uncontroverted position of facts as well as consequent to default order this Rule is accordingly discharged with costs of Tk.1,00,000/-(Taka one lac) only to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-bank within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 17 Writ Petition 4041/2017 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 27-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 China Bangladesh Electronics Private Ltd vsNational Board of Revenue and others Considering the above, it can clearly be discerned that in the absence of any pending demand at the relevant time, directing the Commissioner by the authority concerned of National Board of Revenue to take necessary steps towards freezing the respective bank accounts of the petitioners along with locking their BIN, is without jurisdiction. The impugned order further fails for having been issued by the authority concerned of the National Board of Revenue, who is not a “j§mÉ pw¬k¡Se Ll LjÑLa¡Ñ ” as defined in Section 20 of the Act, 1991. In this regard, the categorical contention of the learned Assistant Attorney General appearing of the respondent concerned is that no final order of freezing the respective bank account or locking the respective BIN of the petitioners have been passed. Rather, by the impugned order a direction was given upon the Commissioner concerned to take necessary steps pursuant to the context as provided therein; hence, this Rule is liable to be knocked down as being pre-mature. Said contention of the learned Assistant Attorney General is a misconceived one, for, within the four corners of the VAT Act, 1991, the Legislature has not empowered the National Board of Revenue to intervene in the matter of locking BIN or freezing the respective bank account by giving direction to that effect except the contexts as prescribed under Sections 43 and 44 of the said Act, 1991. The impugned order further fails for having not complied with the requirements as prescribed under Rule 43 of the VAT Rules, 1991 In view of the above, we have no manner of doubt to find that the impugned order issued by the authority concerned of the National Board of Revenue giving direction upon the Commissioner concerned to take necessary steps with regard to locking BIN or freezing the respective bank accounts of the petitioners is liable to be struck down for having been issued without lawful authority and hence, of no legal effect. 18 Writ Petition 11085/2017 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 15-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Danish Foods Limited vs Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, represented by it Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others Vide Section 83A of the Customs Act, 1969 the customs authority can make a demand for payment of short levied duties upon making amendment of the assessment done earlier. However, fact remains that said provision does not contain the requirement to issue a show cause notice prior to issuance of making said demand.<> In the case of Musa Bhuiyan (Md) -Vs- Commissioner of Customs, Dhaka reported in 23 BLC-662, one of the Benches of this Division has categorically observed that prior to making a demand which has the effect of enhancement of duties, principles of natural justice is required to be complied with, by issuing a show cause notice for amendment of assessment and to give personal hearing to the person concerned.<> Said observations and findings are still in operation. In the instant case, the impugned demand notice dated 22.06.2017 has been issued by the customs authority making amendment of assessment under Section 83A with direction upon the petitioner to deposit the required amount as short levied duties, but without complying with the principles of natural justice. 19 Writ Petition 2806/2023 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 15-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Md. Amdad Ali @ Md. Emdad Ali vs Bangladesh Bank, represented by its Governor, Head Office, Bangladesh Bank Bhaban, P.S. Motijheel, District-Dhaka and others. In view of the above, there is no doubt to find that the petitioner on similar issue earlier filed three other writ petitions bearing Nos.16575 of 2017, 13566 of 2018 and 2205 of 2021 including the present one challenging the auction process initiated by the respondent bank under Section 12(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for auction sale of the mortgaged property of the petitioner which has been claimed by the respondent bank as collateral security for recovery of the defaulted loan amount. However, on every occasion, except writ petition No.13566 of 2018 which was not even moved before this Court, though the petitioner has been able to obtain ad-interim order of stay of the auction process subject to payment of the respective amount within the prescribed period, but on every occasion he did not comply with the same. Further fact remains that while filing the instant writ petition the petitioner suppressed the facts of filing two other writ petitions bearing Nos.16575 of 2017 and 13566 of 2018 on similar issues and based on similar contentions respectively. 20 Writ Petition 9978/2023 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 15-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Kutir Nirman Kousholi Ltd vs Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others It is an admitted position of facts that challenging the adjudication order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Customs, Excise and VAT Commissionerate, Dhaka, the respondent No.2 (Annexure-E), the petitioner as appellant preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka, under the VAT and Supplementary Duty Act, 2012. However, in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal a delay of 2(two) months 23 (twenty three) days have occurred due to the reason of not being informed within time. The Tribunal concerned ultimately dismissed the appeal having not been convinced about the cause of delay so has occasioned while preferring the appeal. The power to condone the delay by the Tribunal is discretionary. However, taking into consideration of the fact that for dismissal of the said appeal the petitioner has become non-suited we are inclined to interfere in the matter for the cause of justice, equity and fair play. 21 Writ Petition 8897/2018 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 15-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Md. Lokman Hossain vs The Commissioner of Customs, Excise and VAT Commissionerate, Dhaka (South), 160/A, IDEB Bhaban, Kakrail, Dhaka and others No affidavit in opposition has been filed by the respondent concern controverting the said assertions so made in the instant writ petition. In the absence of any supporting documents with affidavit from the respondents-concern the averments so made by the petitioner remain uncontroverted. Consequently, this Court finds that without serving final demand under Section 55(3) of the VAT Act, 1991 and without complying the requirements as provided under Section 56 of the VAT Act, 1991 read with Rule 43 of the VAT Rules, 1991 issuing the impugned order dated 28.06.2018 by the respondent No.1 directing the respondent No.3 to freeze the respective bank account of the petitioner is liable to be declared to have been passed without lawful authority; hence, has no legal effect. 22 Writ Petition 2967/2023 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 15-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Al Amin vs Election Appellate Tribunal and others In order to challenge the order of re-counting of ballot papers of the respective election for the post of Counselor of the Pourasava in question the only contention being placed by the petitioner is non-compliance of Rule 62(2) which is merely a procedural compliance to be made by the Tribunal by passing necessary order to that effect. 23 Writ Petition 3912/2023 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 15-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Major General (Retd.) Md. Sarwar Hossain and another vs Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission (BSEC), Dhaka and others The rules of natural justice, however, have a definite meaning in law and their content are well established. Nonetheless, these rules yields to change with the exigencies of different situations. They do not apply in the same manner to situations which are not alike. These rules are not cast in a rigid mould nor can they be put in a legal straitjacket. They are not immutable but flexible, as has been observed in the case of Union of India vs. Tulsiram (1985) 3SCC 398. In the said case further it has been held that the audi alteram partem rule can be excluded when a right to a prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before an order is passed would obstruct the taking of prompt action; or where the nature of the action to be taken, its object and purpose and scheme of the relevant statutory provision warrant its exclusion; or importing it would have the effect of paralysing the administrative process or where the need for promptitude or the urgency of taking action so demands. Considering the given circumstances of the case, non-compliance of the rules of natural justice prior to issuance of the impugned Directives cannot be found unlawful. In that view of the matter, question of violation of the respective fundamental rights, as has been alleged by the petitioners, does not arise. In view of the context as is prevalent in the company it is, thus, apparent that the Commission had exercised its independent supervisory power under Section 20A of the Ordinance by issuing the impugned Directives dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure-A of writ petition No. 3912 of 2023) with the restructure of the Board of Directors of the company so far Independent Directors and one nominee Director are concerned for the sole purpose i.e., for smooth running of the company and for the greater interest of its general investors. Under the circumstances, the intervention of the Commission under Section 20A of the Ordinance, 1969 is found justified. 24 Writ Petition 7501/2023 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 15-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Md. Anisur Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Financial Institution Division, Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka The petitioner filed the instant writ petition challenging the auction process initiated by the respondent bank under Section 12(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for auction sale of the mortgaged property which has been claimed by the respondent bank as collateral security for recovery of the defaulted loan amount. The petitioner has been able to obtain ad-interim order of stay of the auction process subject to payment of the respective amount within the prescribed period, but did not comply with the same. 26 Writ Petition 2836/2013 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 12-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Sun Power Ceramics Company Ltd vs The Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and another 27 Writ Petition 12564/2023 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 12-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Md. Shah Alam vs The Government of Bangladesh Ministry of Finance, represented by the Secretary, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others 28 Writ Petition 2837/2013 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 12-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Sun Power Ceramics Company Ltd vsThe Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and another 29 In re : Writ Petition 4484/2017 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 12-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Shah Amanath Traders vs National Board of Revenue and others. 30 Writ Petition 2835/2013 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 12-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Sun Power Ceramics Company Ltd vs The Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and another 31 Writ Petition 7654/2017 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 12-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Vitalac Dairy and Food Industries Limited vs National Board of Revenue and others. amendment of assessment can be made invoking Section 83A of the Act, 1969. At the same time vide Section 32(3) the Legislature has empowered the Customs authority to make demand of short levied duties which could not be realised earlier at the time of assessment of goods due to inadvertence, error or misconstruction, but subject to issuance of show cause notice. Thus, it can clearly be discerned that the perspective of both Sections 32(3) and 83A are similar, but consequences are all together different, for, Section 83A has not been identified as a penal provision; whereas, for violation of Section 32 of the said Act Customs authority is empowered to impose penalty three times the amount claimed to have been less paid under clause (14) of the Table of Section 156(1) of the Act, 1969. In view of the above observations and findings, we are opinion that no illegality has been committed by the respondent concerned while making demand of short levied duties upon the petitioner under Section 83A of the Act, 1969. In that view of the matter making demand of Tk.9,72,816.28/- as less paid duties under Section 83A for having released the goods under wrong H.S. Code does not suffer from any illegality requiring interference by the Court. 32 Writ Petition 9979/2023 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 12-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Kutir Nirman Kousholi Ltd. vs Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others. It is an admitted position of fact that challenging the adjudication order dated 05.12.2022 (Annexure-E) passed by the Commissioner, Customs, Excise and VAT Commissionerate, Dhaka, the respondent No.2, (Annexure-E), the petitioner as appellant preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka, under the VAT and Supplementary Duty Act, 2012. However, in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal a delay of 2(two) months 23 (twenty three ) days has occurred due to the reason of not being informed within time. The Tribunal concerned ultimately dismissed the appeal having not been convinced about the cause of delay so has occasioned while preferring the appeal. 33 Writ Petition 8899/2018 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 12-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Spectra Sweaters Limited vs National Board of Revenue and others It is the established principle of law that the VAT authority cannot issue demand notice directly without following the provision of Section 55 of the Value Added Tax Act, 1991. 34 Writ Petition 3805/2023 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 11-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Md. Amjad Hossain Molla vs Bangladesh Bank and others Section 49(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 35 Writ Petition 10083/2023 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 11-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Al-Islam Trust Sribordi vs Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Secondary and Higher Education, Bangladesh and others From the above quoted provisions of law it is apparent that subsequent to submission of the list of the respective members of the new executive committee of the petitioner Society the Act of 1860 does not require the Registrar of the Joint Stock Companies to give approval thereof, as claimed by the respondent No.7. In the given context, instead of forwarding the list of the new executive committee of the Society on the plea of not being approved by the Registrar of the Joint Stock Companies forwarding a different list without prior approval of the petitioner Society is unlawful. Accordingly, we have no manner of doubt to find that the impugned approval so has been given vide order dated 17.04.2023 under the signature of the respondent No.6 on behalf of the respondent No.2 basing on the list provided by the respondent No.7 is in flagrant violation of Regulation 49; hence, it is liable to be knocked down. 37 Writ Petition 12872/2022 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 08-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Md. Syed Hossain vs Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, represented by its President, 4th Floor, Jiban Bima Bhaban, 10, Dilkusha Commercial Area , Dhaka-1000 To pay the evaded amount of VAT to the tune of Tk.7,21,77,884/- with interest for an amount of Tk.1,94,88,029/- along with penalty of Tk.14,43,55,768/- under Section 73(2) of the VAT and Supplementary Duty, 2012. 38 Writ Petition 12284/2022 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 08-FEB-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Wazir Mohammad Khan vs Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others The petitioner filed the instant writ petition challenging the auction process initiated by the respondent bank under Section 12(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for auction sale of the mortgaged property which has been claimed by the respondent bank as collateral security for recovery of the defaulted loan amount. The petitioner has been able to obtain ad-interim order of stay of the auction process subject to payment of the respective amount within the prescribed period, but did not comply with the same. 39 Writ Petition 8756/2022 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 25-JAN-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Md. Ali Islam and others Vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Technical and Madrasah Education Division, Ministry of Education and others. “Deputation” is deputing an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organization (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organization (commonly referred to as to borrowing authority) on a temporary basis. After the expiry of the period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per Recruitment Rules: State of Punjub Vs. Inder Singh: (1997) 8 SCC 372. The deputationist while on deputation will remain substantively attached to the parent department: Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. UOI, (2012)7SCC 757. However, there is no legal bar in filling up the posts by deputationist and providing a quota for them when the induction is from more than one source and in such case the deputationist, so appointed, retains his lien in the parent department: Pk Sandha Vs. Shiv Raj V Patil, (1997) 4 SCC 348. Thus, it can clearly be discerned that recruitment to a service may be made on a deputation basis. But in such cases, the deputation does not result in permanent retention in the service to which the employee is deputed. It is therefore, not recruitment in its true import and significance, for, the employee continues to be a member of the parent service/organization from where he is recruited on deputation. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are admittedly the members of BCS (General Education) Cadre. However, prior to their deputation at BMTTI in the post of Assistant Professor they were functioning as Assistant Professor in the respective colleges under the Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education. Since they are not the permanent officers of BMTTI recruited under the respective service Rules of BMTTI but are on deputation at BMTTI for the respective period temporarily retaining their lien in the parent department they have no legal right to challenge the BMTTI Service Rules, 2021 with a view to keep the respective posts reserved and to be filled up only by the officers of BCS (General Education) Cadre on deputation. 40 Writ Petition 2806/2023 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 21-JAN-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Md. Amdad Ali @ Md. Emdad Ali vs Bangladesh Bank, represented by its Governor, Head Office, Bangladesh Bank Bhaban, P.S. Motijheel, District-Dhaka and others. 41 Writ Petition 8756/2022 (.../) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 17-JAN-24 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Md. Ali Islam and others-vs-Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh 42 Writ Petition 15724/2022 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 29-NOV-23 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Professor Zaheer Al-Amin -vs-Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Secretariat Bhaban, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 The legal position is well settled that power of judicial review under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh in cases of imposition of punishment of the delinquent person is not on merits of the impugned decision. Moreso, while exercising this power it is not open to this court to reappreciate and reappraise the documents led before the inquiry committee and examining the findings recorded by the said committee as a court of appeal. This court is to see whether there was non-observance of the principle of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity or the punishment so has been imposed is totally or shockingly disproportionate to the proven context. As observed earlier, prior to issuance of the impugned order of suspension the petitioner was asked to give reply on the allegations on two occasions; one, immediate after receipt of complaint i.e. on 03.06.2020 (Annexure-C) and another, on 29.09.2021 (Annexure-D) before the Disciplinary Committee. Later, vide show cause notice dated 31.10.2022 (Annexure-E) he was again given opportunity to give reply to the allegations so brought against, in order to defend his part of the case. In the given facts and circumstances, absence of service of notice at the stage of investigation does not go to negate the admitted fact that the petitioner did conduct surgery on the right parotid gland without taking written consent and again conducted surgery on the left parotid gland on the same date. It also cannot dislodge the fact that for non-compliance of service of notice at investigation stage the patient did not suffer. Considering the context of the case and position of law we have no manner of doubt to find that raising the plea of non-service of notice during the course of investigation and thereby claimed to have been prejudiced for having been deprived of getting reasonable opportunity to defend his case, falls through. Moreover, in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case the impugned punishment of suspension of registration cannot be termed as shockingly disproportionate to the findings of the authority concerned. In view of the above, it is accordingly found that prior to issuance of the impugned order of suspension dated 16.11.2022 there was due observance of the basic principle of natural justice with reasonable opportunity so has been provided to the petitioner to defend his case. 43 Writ Petition 7357/2023 (/) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 21-SEP-23 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Md. Abu Sayeed Miah and others -Vs-Bangladesh Election Commission, represented by the Chief Election Commissioner and others Nowhere within the four corners of Section 6(3), the Legislature has bound the Election Commission to endorse the “proposed change of areas” while inviting the inhabitants of the respective constituency to raise objection or place their opinion in support thereof. The requirement of law under Section 6(3) is to endorse “proposed area” to be included in the respective territorial constituency. Moreso, with the use of the words “ কমিশন, তদ্‌কর্তৃক প্রাপ্ত আপত্তি এবং পরামর্শ, যদি থাকে, শুনানি গ্রহণ করিয়া এবং ক্ষেত্রমত, বিবেচনা করিয়া উপযুক্ত মনে করিলে উপ-ধারা (৩) এর অধীন প্রকাশিত প্রাথমিক তালিকায় প্রয়োজনীয় সংশোধন করিয়া,, ................” in Section 6(4), the intention of the Legislature becomes abundantly clear that change of area, if so requires, is to be endorsed by the Election Commission only after hearing the objection/receiving opinion and considering other required documents on administrative convenience, upon making necessary amendment of the preliminary list published under Section 6(3) of the Act, 2021. 44 Writ Petition 9964/2019 (/) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 05-SEP-23 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Sheikh Saeem Ferdous -Vs-Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Rural Development and Co-operatives Division, Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives, Bangladesh of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the observations so made above it is categorically found that: (a) While giving promotion to respondent Nos.5-9 vide the impugned order dated 06.08.2019 (Annexure-D) the Academy did not supersede the petitioner; (b) Admitting the fact that the petitioner is senior to respondent Nos. 5-9, but considering his service record including ACR the Academy did not consider his promotion; (c) Considering outstanding performance and 15 (fifteen) years work experience in the respective field of the Academy respondent No.5 was appointed in the post of Deputy Director relaxing his age bar vide clause (4) of the circular dated 22.10.2011 (Annexure-3); hence is found lawful; (d) Giving promotion to respondent No.6 to the post of Joint Director having served 5 (five) years in the post of Deputy Director with more than 5 (five) years service experience while giving appointment in the post of Deputy Director, in total, having 10 years service period, is found lawful; and (e) Last but not the least, since adverse remarks so made against the petitioner in his ACR for the year 2017 and 2018 respectively, were not done in due compliance of the respective Rules and regulation and now, are withdrawn; hence, the petitioner is now entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director in due compliance of law. 45 Writ Petition 1710/2019 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 10-AUG-23 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 M/S Barnali Printers Ltd.-vs-Commissioner (current charge), Customs, Excise and VAT Commissionerate, Dhaka and others. 46 Writ Petition 13749/2022 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 10-AUG-23 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Md. Raju Hossen-vs-Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission (BSEC) and others Since Main Market Platform and SME Platform, created by the Commission upon framing respective Rules, are based upon materials and having substantial difference with reasonable relations between the objects and the persons dealt with and the objectives sought to be achieved, said classification is found reasonable. That being so, imposition of restriction by the Commission in the SME Platform in exercise of power as provided under Section 20A of the Ordinance, 1969 cannot be said to have offended Articles 27 and 29 of the Constitution. Moreover, in view of the assertions of the Commission and also, considering the context of the impugned notification being issued for the greater interest of the general qualified investors, question of violation of Articles 40 and 42 of the Constitution does not arise at all. Hence, we do not find any reason requiring interference in the impugned restriction while exercising power under Article 102 of the Constitution. Further, fixing “Floor Price” for the Main Market vide order dated 28.07.2022 (Annexure-C) was on temporary basis considering extranuating circumstances. Moreover, giving open “Floor Price” for SME Platform is the absolute discretion of the Commission being exercised under Section 20A of the Ordinance, 1969. As such, seeking direction by the petitioner in the form of mandamus for open “Floor Price” for SME Platform on the context that “Floor Price” is imposed in the Main Trading Platform (Main Market ) vide order dated 28.07.2022 (Annexure-C) upon the movement of share price, is not maintainable. 47 Writ Petition 10921/2022 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 10-AUG-23 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Md. Abdur Rahim Bhuaya-vs-The Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others. The petitioner having failed to show violation of any provision of law being allegedly committed by the Election Appellate Tribunal, Jamalpur while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 24.08.2022 as such, he is not entitled to seek equitable relief under Article 102 of the Constitution on the issue of contradiction in counting votes by the Election Tribunal and Election Appellate Tribunal concerned respectively, for being based squarely on disputed question of facts. 48 Writ Petition 9305/2020 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 09-AUG-23 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Arif Hossain-vs-Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, P.S.-Bandar, Chattogram and others. It is the settled principle of law that the remedy given under writ jurisdiction is equitable; hence, the applicant must come with clean hands. In view of the decision of our apex Court in Oriental Bank vs. A B Siddiq (2008) 13 BLC (AD) -144 the improper conduct with regard to the matter in controversy may disentitle him to get equitable relief. In the present case, proceeding under Section 83A of the Act, 1969 was initiated with the issuance of show cause notice on 15.01.2018 within 6(six) months of assessment; the petitioner with intention did not respond to the same. Said improper conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from taking the plea of limitation in order to strike down the reminder notice issued upon him subsequently on 10.10.2020 (Annexure-C). 49 Writ Petition 397/2023 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 09-AUG-23 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Md. Hasan Patwary-vs-The Chief Election Commissioner and others. In view of the above findings, since concealment of facts of disqualification of the petitioner tantamounts to fraud as such, it vitiates everything. In that view of the matter, seeking equitable relief by the petitioner for a declaration that publication of subsequent gazette notification dated 06.01.22 by the respondent No.1 excluding the name of the petitioner as elected Member, is not maintainable in the eye of law. Before we part, it is pertinent to observe that every election process involves huge finance involving public money and with the publication of election schedule the officers concerned are deputed in the respective fields to discharge their respective official designated duties faithfully with proper application of mind. But when they fail, miscarriage of justice occurs by causing injury to the concerned affected persons. Present case is a glaring instance of failure of professional duties of the respondent No.4, which in the given context is unfortunate and hence, deprecated. 50 Writ Petition 718/2021 (/) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 09-AUG-23 From : Annex Building Court No. 13 Md. Arifuzzaman Sarker-vs-Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by Secretary Ministry of Education, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others. Since the impugned order dated 15.01.2020 has been issued without the recommendation of the Selection Committee hence, we have no manner of doubt to find that it has no mandate of law. Rather, said order is a glaring instance of abuse of the administrative power of the respondent No.2. Moreover, because of issuance of the said questionable impugned order the petitioner has been deprived of his right to be considered for promotion. In view of the above findings that the impugned order of promotion has been issued by the respondent No.2 unlawfully hence, taking the plea that said order having not been acted upon with the approval of the Board and as such, is premature, is nothing but a device being resorted to by the said respondent to cover up the said questionable order which is under challenge in the instant Rule. Accordingly, the submissions so made by the respondents concerned to that effect, falls through.