HC recalls verdict against Dr Yunus

A High Court (HC) bench has recalled its verdict and order delivered over a tax claim for Tk 6.66 billion from Prof Dr Muhammad Yunus, chief adviser of the interim government, and his organisation Grameen Kalyan after regime change.
The judgment was recalled on grounds that one of the judges of the bench that delivered the verdict was once a party to writ cases related to the tax amount.
It is common practice that if a lawyer once participates in a case as a party, he or she feels embarrassed to hold hearing on that case after becoming a judge.
However, the judge found himself that he had served as a state lawyer in Dr Yunus' cases, only after the delivery of the verdict and after the change of the Sheikh Hasina regime.
Barrister Abdullah Al Mamun, who represented Prof Yunus in the cases, confirmed the FE of the latest court order.
Supreme Court sources said the cases were sent to the Chief Justice after the verdict was recalled to assign a new bench to dispose of the cases.
On August 04, the day before the fall of the Sheikh Hasina government, the HC rejected two writ petitions filed by Grameen Kalyan, challenging the legality of imposition of income tax worth Tk 6.66 billion on the organisation for five assessment years from 2012-2013 to 2016-2017.
The HC bench of Justice Muhammad Khurshid Alam Sarkar and Justice SM Maniruzzaman delivered the verdict after hearing the petitions.
However, the verdict was recalled by the HC bench on grounds that the second judge of the bench once served as a state lawyer in the cases.
Lawyer Tahmina Polly, who was then an assistant attorney general and represented the National Board of Revenue (NBR) in the cases, told the FE that the court recalled the verdict after her resignation from the post on August 08.
Issuing two separate notifications on 07 and 11 September 2017, Taxes Zone-14 in Dhaka claimed Tk 6.66 billion as income tax from Grameen Kalyan for the assessment years in question.
The tax office also granted Grameen Kalyan two weeks' time and fixed 21 September 2017 for hearing the issue.
However, Grameen Kalyan sought one month's time from the tax office, saying that they needed it for collecting necessary documents. However, the tax office rejected their prayer and passed an order on September 26.
Later, the entity filed a review plea, which was also rejected on 14 November 2017. Then it moved the HC and filed two separate writs on different grounds.
Upon hearing the petitions, a High Court bench on 26 November 2017 issued a rule asking the government to explain as to why the tax office's orders passed on 14 November and 26 September 2017 should not be declared illegal.
Pending disposal of the rule, the operation of the demand notices for income tax was stayed for six months. However, the tenure of the stay was extended several times.
On 17 October 2023, the Justice Khurshid-Rashed bench delivered a verdict based on the rule. They set aside the order passed on 11 November 2017 and disposed of the rule with some observations.
However, following a leave-to-appeal petition, the apex court on March 11 this year asked the HC bench, headed by Justice Khurshid, to hear and dispose of the rule afresh on merit.
Complying with the apex court order, the HC bench in May started fresh hearing on the petitions and delivered the verdict on August 04.

[email protected]