Published :
Updated :
For all latest news, follow The Financial Express Google News channel.
The High Court issued a rule on Monday, asking the relevant authorities to explain why the 1.0-percent surcharge collected from mobile-phone users to fund the construction of the Padma Bridge should not be stopped.
The government introduced the surcharge in 2016 under the Development Surcharge and Levy (Imposition and Collection) Act 2015 to raise funds for the Padma Bridge project.
The order was issued by the High Court bench of Justice Fatema Najib and Justice Md Hamidur Rahman after hearing a writ petition filed by a rights organization, Conscious Consumers Society (CCS).
In the rule, the court also requested an explanation from the government authorities as to why their inaction in stopping the surcharge collection should not be deemed illegal.
Advocate AKM Azad Hossain represented the writ petitioner during the court hearing.
On July 10 of this year, CCS Executive Director Palash Mahmud filed a petition challenging the legality of the authorities' decision to collect the one percent surcharge and requested the court to issue necessary directives.
On June 4, CCS sent a legal notice to the secretaries of the Finance Ministry, the Posts, Telecommunications and Information Technology Ministry, Law Ministry, and Bridges Division, as well as the Chairman of the National Board of Revenue (NBR), Chairman of the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission, and Managing Directors of Grameenphone, Banglalink, Robi, and Teletalk. The notice demanded the withdrawal of the surcharge within seven days.
Although the bridge was inaugurated in 2022, the surcharge remains in effect, with over Tk 20.00 billion already collected from consumers, CCS claimed.
The notice further pointed out that while Section 4 of the 2015 Act allows the government to impose such surcharges for a specific purpose and duration through a gazette notification, no timeframe was mentioned in the relevant circular issued on March 10, 2016. The notice highlighted that the ongoing collection without a specified duration goes against the law and undermines consumer rights.
bikashju@gmail.com