The High Court has asked as to why the orders of the Customs, Excise & VAT Commissionerate, Chattogram demanding Tk2,350 crore as Value Added Tax (VAT) from the two companies of S Alam Group, the country's largest industrial group, should not be declared illegal.
The apex court also asked the government as to why the orders were not given for rehearing on the petitions filed by S Alam Group.
The High Court bench of Justice Zafar Ahmed and Justice Sardar Md Rashed Jahangir gave two rules after hearing the petitions on Monday (1 July).
Advocate Ahsanul Karim presented the statement on behalf of the writs in the hearing.
After the orders, Advocate Ahsanul Karim told the reporters, “A demand letter claiming Tk 2,350 crore as unpaid VAT was sent to S Alam Super Edible Oil Ltd and S Alam Vegetable Oil Ltd, two companies of the S Alam Group. The two companies immediately contacted to respond to the letter. The commissioner of Customs, Excise & VAT Commissionerate, Chattogram made three complaints to reply. These are - VAT was not paid in advance, VAT was not paid even if goods were sold to more than one customer and advance tax on the raw materials to be purchased from the local market for production was not paid.”
“Actually, the first allegation is not true at all. These two companies have paid advance tax. The second allegation is also not true, as some goods were sold in advance before production. Later, the buyer returned the advance money without purchasing the goods. The full amount of transaction has been made account to account. The third allegation is also not true as the local market where the raw material is said to be purchased is not available within the country. It has to be imported from abroad. Hence this allegation is not true,” he added.
“These complaints were initially answered on March 18 this year and it is said that the answer will be provided with documentary evidence. In this regard, on April 17, an order of the commissioner of Customs, Excise & VAT Commissionerate, Chattogram set June 5 for hearing. On June 4, the day before the scheduled date, time extension was sought due to personal problems of the senior counsel. But the commissioner of Customs, Excise & VAT Commissionerate, Chattogram, did not give any order on the appointed day of 5 June. On 6 June, another application was made asking whether a decision had been taken on the lawyer's application seeking time extension or whether the application is approved or rejected. However, on 9 April, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the commissioner of Customs, Excise & VAT Commissionerate, Chattogram, issued the demand order.
Ahsanul Karim also said, “The commissioner of Customs, Excise & VAT Commissionerate, Chattogram, passed the order in disregard of the law as it did not give any opportunity of hearing. The High Court has already ruled that the petitioners must be heard in such cases.”
