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.