NBR abolition: Writ petition filed challenging legality of ordinance

A lawyer has filed a writ petition challenging legality of the ordinance issued to establish two separate divisions named the Revenue Policy Division and the Revenue Management Division through restructuring of the existing framework.

Supreme Court lawyer Jewel Azad submitted the petition today, Saturday, to the relevant branch of the High Court. Speaking to Prothom Alo he said, “There may be a hearing on the petition later this week in the High Court bench consisting Justice Fatema Najib and Justice Sikder Mahmudur Razi.”

Earlier on 12 May, an ordinance was issued to establish two new divisions named the ‘Revenue Policy Division’ and the ‘Revenue Management Division’ by dissolving the National Board of Revenue (NBR) and Internal Resources Division (IRD).

The ordinance titled ‘Revenue Policy and Revenue Management Ordinance’ stated that the revenue policy division will oversee the implementation of tax laws and the state of tax collection, while the actual collection of revenue will be handled by the revenue management division.

The writ petition sought a ruling asking why the ordinance should not be declared conflicting and beyond legal authority, in light of Articles 26, 31, and 29(1) of the Constitution.

If the court issues the rule, the petitioner has requested that the defendants be directed to publicly disclose proposals from concerning stakeholders regarding reforms of the revenue management system while the matter remains under deliberation.

The writ also seeks a stay on the implementation of the ordinance while the rule is under deliberation. The secretaries of law and finance have been made defendants in the petition.

Article 26 of the constitution of Bangladesh ensures annulment of any existing laws inconsistent with basic rights, Article 31 guarantees the right to protection of law; and Article 29(1) ensures equal opportunity for all citizens in respect of employment or office in the service of the Republic.

Presenting arguments in support of the writ, lawyer Jewel Azad told Prothom Alo that the ordinance was issued hastily without proper consultations with the stakeholders.

The ordinance abolished the 1972 Presidential order regarding the establishment of the National Board of Revenue. A proper legal procedure should be followed to abolish this. It was necessary to take opinions of the stakeholders involved in revenue.

Lawyer Jewel Azad further stated that the stakeholders had submitted reform proposals on this matter to relevant authorities. However, issuing the ordinance without disclosing what those proposals were was inappropriate.

He added that the NBR had indeed been carrying out its responsibilities properly in recent years. So, there could have been reforms at the NBR instead of dissolving it.

Mentioning that Article 31 of the constitution does not ‘support’ abolition of the identity of an institution, lawyer Jewel Azad pointed out that the top positions in the two newly formed divisions will now be filled from the administrative cadre.

The NBR officials will be deprived in this case, which is not supported by Article 29(1) of the Constitution. The writ has been filed basically on these arguments.