Appeal from the Supreme Court of Bangladesh High Court Division (Writ Petition No. 6413/97, 2246/98 and 5341/96)
Background of the Appeal: The petitioner is a public charity organization that is registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act of 1960. Clause 3 of the Society’s Memorandum enumerates the petitioner’s operations in detail. The aim clause states that the petitioner is a non-profit organization that engages in charity and social welfare activities. The petitioner filed an income tax return for the assessment years 1993–1994, 1994–1995, 1995–96, and 1996–97, claiming exemption from taxes under the provisions outlined in Paragraph (2) of Paragraph A of the Sixth Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984. The petitioner’s claim was denied by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, who then calculated the petitioner’s income and levied taxes using various assessment orders for each assessment year.
Issues: Is there any jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Taxes to waive the payment of fifteen percent of the applicable tax?
Judgment: According to the proviso, the Commissioner of Taxation has been granted discretionary power. With this power, the Commissioner of Taxation may, upon the appellant’s request, alter or waive the payment requirement as specified in Clause (a) of Subsection (3). The Commissioner of Taxes may have to take into account the case’s facts and circumstances, the applicant’s tax liability, and any obstacles to making the advance tax payment while using this legislative discretion. Because the petitioner, who is the appellant in this case, is not the assessee, the petitioner filed a written representation and requested a waiver of the necessity to pay 15% of the estimated tax.
Comments: The petitioner contends that the Commissioner ought to have used discretion in their favor in light of an earlier ruling by the Taxes Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner is right, according to the court, that the Commissioner should have done so and that this is why the orders were overturned. As a result, the Commissioner of Taxes is mandated to conduct the appeal in compliance with the law and without having to pay any fees. Unless he is found to be otherwise disentitled by his conduct or any legal restriction, judicial discretion is exercised in light of the facts and circumstances of the case in order to do justice, for the sake of fair play, to case the suffering of the justice seeker, and to put him in a comfortable position with respect to his right. The act stipulates that statutory discretion must be used consistently and from the same perspective in order to give the citizen, litigant, or justice seeker a convenient and comfortable position with relation to his right to receive justice before a statutory body. We believe that the Commissioner of Taxes did not fulfill his statutory.