The court has scheduled hearings on two separate appeals before a full Appellate Division bench led by the chief justice on 13 December.
 
The Appellate Division's chamber court has temporarily stayed a High Court verdict that dismissed two separate writ petitions filed by Grameen Kalyan, an organisation founded by Prof Muhammad Yunus, challenging the legality of a tax commissioner's decision to demand Tk666 crore in taxes for five assessment years.
 
The court has scheduled hearings on the petitions before a full Appellate Division bench led by the chief justice on 13 December. The order means Grameen Kalyan will not have to pay the Tk666 crore in disputed taxes for the time being, lawyers said.
 
Grameen Kalyan filed the appeals with the relevant section of the Appellate Division this morning.
 
On 10 September, the High Court ruled that Grameen Kalyan must pay the Tk666 crore in income tax demanded by the National Board of Revenue (NBR), dismissing the previous rulings issued in response to the organisation's writ petitions.
 
The two separate full verdicts, spanning 15 and 32 pages, were published on 15 October.
 
In its observations, the High Court described the case as "a classic example of tax evasion".
 
"The applicant is trying to evade taxes by prolonging a settled matter. The matter could have been viewed differently. However, the applicant has left no stone unturned in keeping the matter pending for a long time, thereby depriving the opposite party of its rightful revenue," the court observed.
 
The court noted that the two writ petitions challenged the legality of Tk666 crore in income tax imposed for the five assessment years from 2012-13 to 2016-17.
 
However, Grameen Kalyan had paid income tax of the same nature for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 assessment years. Although the organisation later challenged the legality of that tax through Income Tax Reference No 363 of 2019, it subsequently withdrew the case, the court said.
 
The High Court further observed that the applicant had repeatedly taken positions contrary to its own stance on the same issue.
 
"The applicant has been continuously talking about the same issue while going against its own position and has been determined to show extreme arrogance towards the orders of this court — which is tantamount to giving a thumbs-down to the court's orders," the verdict stated.