This case, MJL Bangladesh Ltd Vs. Commissioner, Customs Excise and VAT and others, 63 DLR 257 —concerns the registration of a company’s new name with the Value Added Tax (VAT) authority in Bangladesh. The petitioner claimed that the respondents unreasonably refused to accept their altered name, which has caused the business to suffer. The dispute was centered around whether the petitioner was legally required to pay all outstanding dues to the VAT authority before registering the new name.
Facts of the case
The petitioner sought to change its name from Mobil Jamuna Lubricants Ltd. to MJL Bangladesh Ltd. The petitioner duly filled out the Mushak-9 form and made a declaration informing the change of name to the VAT authority. However, the respondents refused to register the new name until all outstanding dues were settled.
Point of dispute
The question before the court was whether Rule 12(1) of the VAT Rule, 1991, required the petitioner to pay all outstanding dues before registering the new name of the company.
Laws applied
The court examined Rule 12(1) of the VAT Rule, 1991, in the context of Section 18 and Section 72 of the VAT Act, 1991. Section 18 did not require the VAT payee to obtain permission for registration of the change in information supplied at the time of VAT registration. However, the court found that a combined reading of the provisions supported the mandatory requirements of Rule 12(1) of the VAT Rule.saco de dormir the north face inferno bass jbl reset citiz nespresso machine ronnie fieg x puma disc blaze saco de dormir the north face inferno lov om udendørs belysning ronnie fieg x puma disc blaze měděná stolní lampa lego schneehose nike jordan 4 union lov om udendørs belysning bass jbl bewegungsmelder fassung e27 kaszmirow swetry angora Amazon costo cubre colchon sognare individual
Legal analysis
The court considered the arguments put forth by both parties. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the VAT Act did not require payment of all claims before submission of the declaration of any circumstances related to the VAT payee, including its name. They also claimed that the respondents unreasonably refused to accept the petitioner’s altered name, causing serious harm to the business. The respondents’ counsel argued that the petitioner was legally bound to comply with Rule 12(1) of the VAT Rules, which required clearing of outstanding dues before registering a new name.
Final verdict
The court found that the requirements of setting the outstanding dues of the company before obtaining a certificate from the respondents duly registered in the new name of the petitioner-company was a condition precedent. However, since the petitioner was willing to pay and settle all outstanding dues with the respondents, the court directed the respondents to register the new name of the company, MJL Bangladesh Ltd., upon receiving pay orders covering the amount of claim by the VAT authority in its entirety as per the statement given in Annexure-‘Z’ of the supplementary affidavit dated 25-7-2010 forthwith. Therefore, the Rule was disposed of.