Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Third Urban Governance and Infrustructure Improvement (sector) Project(UGIIP-III),LGED

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava Report prepared by: Md. Zahurul Islam, Consultant -Municipal Taxation and Financial Specialist Governance Improvement and Capacity Development, UGIIP-III AF, LGED Email: zahir.ucep@yahoo.com

December 23, 2018

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

|2

Introduction Cox’s Bazar Pourashava was established in 1869 in the Cox’s Bazar district headquarter. It is an ‘A’ category Pourashava located on the Bay of Bengal between Chittagong and Teknaf. The town is the most important tourism destination in Bangladesh attracts lot of tourists from home and abroad round the year. Presently the Pourashava covers an area of 32.90 square kilometers in 9 wards with a population of 167477 with 56.29% male and 43.71% female1. The Pourashava mainly generates own sources revenues from holding taxes, trade/business licenses, rental shops, leases of hat-bazar, etc.

The key reasons of the study are to assess the potential own sources of reveneue of Cox’s Bazar Pourashava2, and identify their key challenges that limit the revenue potential opportinities.

Governance Improvement and Capacity Development (GICD-2) consulties under UGIIP-III has been asked by the Project Director of UGIIP-III, LGED to carryout an ‘‘Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava’’. Accordingly, a field visit was conducted by two consultants namely Md. Zahurul Islam (Municipal Taxation & Financial Specialist), and Md. Alfaj Uddin, Regional Coordinator (Municipal Finance) at Cox’s Bazar Pourashava from 22 to 24 October 2018.

In the study, purposive and convenience sampling techniques were used to minimize the time of field works. Both analytical and discriptive study designs were followed for the assessment of revenue potential in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava.In addition, Secondary data was collected with the help of the records and reports of Cox’s Bazar Pourashava. For analysis of secondary data various analytical tables were set up. Interviews and discussion with Pourashava officials at different levels were also conducted to collect information and obtain necessary clarifications.

The report has been prepared in a short brief and precise manner with highlighting the key points relevant with this study purpose. This report is organized as follows: Section 1 states the background and purpose of this study; Section 2 gives an analysis of historical revenue performance; Section 3 describes the methodology & limitations for estimating revenue potentials; Section 4 attempts to estimate the revenue potentiality of own sources; Section 5 identify the factors that limiting the revenue potentiality, and Section 6 offers some concluding remarks.

1 2

According to BBS 2011 For detail visit http://coxsbazarmunicipality.gov.bd/

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

CONTENTS

Introduction (page 2) Backgroud and objective of the study (page 04) Anlysis of the past revenue performance (page 05) Estimating revenue potentials: Methodology & Limitations (page 07) Revenue potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava: Estimation results (page 10) Holding tax Trade license Rental shops Leasing properties 5. Factors limiting the revenue potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava (page 16) 6. Conclusions (page 17) 1.

2.

3.

4.

Annexes (page 18-60) Annex 1 Comparison in between before and after reassessment Annex 2Consolidate result of the sampling of 366 holdings Annex 2(i-xi) Data Survey: Holding tax Annex 3 Data Survey: Trade license Annex 3(i) Data Survey: Trade license Annex 4 Data Survey: Rental shops Annex 5 Data Survey: Leasing properties Annex 6 Total Revenue Analysis, FY2013-14 to FY2017-18 Annex 7 Revenue Demand & Collection of FY 2017-18 Abbreviation (page 61) A titled photography ‘’Revenue for Development’’ (page 62)

|3

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

|4

1. Background and objective of the study The inadequacy of revenue is a major challenge on Pourashava playing a more pro-active role in public service delivery and local infrastructure development. One of the reasons points out for the low level of revenue mobilization from internal sources of raising revenues is that Pourashava act 2009 entails many of these are not potential revenue yielder in the local contexts, one the other hand, it is also found that PS is unable to collect enough revenues from the sources assigned to them even when the potential for raising revenue from such sources is high. UGIIP-III through UGIAP is giving attention to explore and exploit local opportunities to raise local revenues from the potential sources.

The source of funds of Cox’s Bazar Pourashava is from GOB, and different donors, and small portion budget3 (16.42%) in FY 2018-19 has been covered by revenue incomes. The amount of revenue to be raised

by Cox’s Bazar Pourashava from internal sources trends to be account for a small portion of the annual spending performance, as a result the ability of the Cox’s Bazar Pourashava to plan and achieve their priorities especially for O&M for existing infrastructure and ongoing and upcoming infrastructure are severely being limited day by day.

Local

Government

(Pourashava)

Act, 2009 has given mandate to Pourashavas

to

collect

local

revenues from own sources such holding

tax,

trade

licenses,

market rents, property leasing in order

to

carry

out

service

delivery for its city dwellers, but expenditure

on

public

service

delivery remains to be short, if

Local Government (Pourashava) Act, 2009 has given mandate to Pourashavas to collect local revenues from own sources such holding tax, trade licenses, market rents, property leasing in order to carry out service delivery for its city dwellers, but expenditure on public service delivery remains to be short, if the portion of revenue budget remains low in comparison with its local spending needs. Thus, it was a need to carry out a study with an attention of tracing the loopholes of revenue collection and identify revenue potentials in relation to improved service delivery mandates.

the portion of revenue budget remains low in comparisons with its local spending needs. Thus, it was a need to carry out a study with an attention of tracing the loopholes

of

revenue

collection

and identify revenue potentials in relation

to

improved

service

delivery mandates.

The overall objective of this study was to undertake analysis of existing structure of internal revenue mobilization of Cox’s Bazar Pourashava and recommend mechanisms with a view to enhance own source revenue generation from potential sources. More specifically the objectives are:

i. ii. iii.

3

Analyze the revenue performance of the last 5 years; Estimate revenue potentiality of own source with specific focus on holding tax, trade licenses, rental shops, and leasing properties; Identify the challenges and constraints that limit the revenue potentiality, with concluding remarks.

Budget of FY 2018-19 of Cox’s Bazar Pourashava consists of the incomes BDT 214.48 million (16.42%) from revenues, BDT 62 million (4.74%) from Government donations, and BDT 1,030 million (78.84%) from project grants.

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

|5

2. Analysis of the past revenue performance The objective of the section is to analyze past revenue performance. Trend analysis will provide important inputs for estimating revenue potentiality. To do so, data of all tax and non-tax items were obtained from Cox’s Bazar Pourashava during visit. The below Table 1 depicts the own source revenue collection performance of Cox’s Bazar Pourashava of last 5 fiscal years from 2013-14 to 2017-18.

Table 1 : Total Revenue Analysis (BDT in lakh), FY2013-14 to FY2017-18 Non-taxes (other than holding tax) Financial Year (FY)

Holding tax

Own Land ADP, source transfer Special, Development revenues fees non, and project (Holding (shared developm grants tax + non revenue) ent grants taxes) h=b+g i j k 560.96 240.12 8.44 880.54 601.38 378.21 2.69 137.92 860.74 315.93 3.49 76.00 961.14 328.18 4.65 155.00 1,316.13 364.64 6.06 440.40

Total incomes

Trade licenses

Own shop rent

b 219.44 266.51 343.30 453.82 667.80

c 138.78 161.63 267.14 224.06 324.60

d 16.26 21.75 29.77 25.00 32.27

e 172.55 106.86 164.81 226.12 243.18

f 13.92 44.63 55.72 32.14 48.29

g=c+d+e+f 341.51 334.87 517.44 507.32 648.33

390.18

223.24

25.01

182.70

38.94

469.89

860.07

325.42

5.07

337.97

Percenage contribution of revenue items for a 5 year period

25.53%

14.61%

1.64%

11.95%

2.55%

30.74%

56.27%

21.29%

0.33%

22.11%

100.00%

Average growth /Reduction rate (%) over the last 5 years

15.56%

12.17% 10.77%

1.18%

35.94%

7.52%

10.66%

35.52%

-39.98%

-61.62%

-9.56%

a 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Average yearly collection of last 5 years

Leasing of Misc. Total nonproperties Revenues taxes

l=h+i+j+k 1,690.06 1,120.19 1,256.17 1,448.96 2,127.23 1,528.52

Source: Pourashava Budget books (actual incomes), Receipts & Payments Statement, and QPR of UGIIP-3 Note:/ Govt. transfers (k+j)

Tax4 and non-tax5 revenues constitute the own source revenue.Percentage contribution of total own reveneue items for a last five year period, from figure 1.1 in the left, it indicates that the performance of holding tax (25.53%) as a single source was far better than nontax revenues (30.74%). Like as revenue from trade licence (14.61%) was the second largest own soruce revenue, and the same way the revenue from the leasing properties(11.95%) was the third largest, and revenue from own rent shops (1.64%) was the small lowest contribuion in own source revenues of Cox’s Bazar in the study period. Other side. Revenue from misc. sources has only 2.55% share out of total average yearly income of last five years.

Leasing of properties , Own shop 11.95% rent, 1.64%

Misc.

Revenues, 2.55% Govt.

Transfers, 22.44%

Holding tax, 25.53%

Business, and trade licenses, 14.61%

Land transfer fee (shared revenue), 21.29%

Figure 1.1 Percentage contribution of total own reveneue items for a last five year period

4 5

Tax referes as holdng taxes.

Non-tax referes as other taxs and revenues other than holding taxes.

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

|6

The average share of total own source revenues over the study period reveals that own source revenues have always formed a larger part (56.27%) of total income than government tranfers through porject support, development and non-development grants (22.46%) [Table1].Thus, the analysis shows that dependency and importancy of own source reveneue is very signfincantly increasing.

Grants from Government represent the highest source of receipt over for the five year period except finanial year 2015-16. Looking at trends in total own source revenues over the last five years period, analysis shows they have been moving forward, but government transfers (Figure 1.2) has fallen a drastic fall.6

40.00%

35.94%

30.00% 20.00% 15.56% 12.17% 10.77% 10.00% 1.18%

ADP, Special, non-dev. grants

Misc. Revenues

Development, and project grants

-40.00%

Leasing of properties

-30.00%

Own shop rent

-20.00%

Business, and trade licenses

-10.00%

Holding tax

0.00%

39.98%

-50.00% -60.00% -70.00%

61.62%

Figure 1.2 in left side, indicates that on single item basis, holding tax (15.56%) has the highest growth rate during the study period. In the same way, trade licence (12.17%) has second highest, and renting shops (10.77%) has third higest growth rate in same period. Although revenues from leasing properties (1.18%) has the lowest small growth rate but Income from miscellaneous heads has largest growth (35.94% ) due to high collection from birth, marriage and national certificates, roller rents, sale of forms, fees for tubwells, and etc. which cause non-tax revenues to raise substaitially in the period. So, the analysis reveales that Cox’s Bazar PS has made some efforts to augment tax,and non-tax revenues over the study period.

The figure 1.2 also depicts that govt. development and project grants 61.62% and ADP, special allocations. non-development grants & other revenue grants 39.98% has fallen a drastic fall over the last five years end.

Average growth /Reduction rate (%) over the last 5 years Figure 1.2 Average growth /Reduction rate (%) over the last 5 years

6

Table 1 depicts BDT 880.54 lakh receipt of development and project grants in FY 2013-14 from Government but it has fallen down from the subsequent years.

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

|7

3. Estimating revenue potentials – Methodology & Limitations For the purpose of this study, the revenue potential of a tax or revenue source is defined as the amount of revenue the Pourashava would collect from its revenue source, if they were to apply their maximum efforts to collect the taxes or revenues. Following formula has been used in this study as a basis to estimate the revenue potentials for each of revenue item.

The term ‘revenue potential’ in this study is used to refer to the ‘unutilized Revenue Potential (UnRP).

Following 3 formulas have been used to estimate the Used Revenue Potential (URP), ‘Unutilized Revenue Potential (UnRP)’ and Total Revenue Potential (TRP) for each of revenue source.

1. Used Revenue Potential (URP) = Tax Coverage Ratio (TCR) X Assessed Ratio ( AR) X Collection Efficiency Ratio(CER) 2. Unutilized Revenue Potential (UnRP)= 1-URP , or 100% -URP(%) 3. Total Revenue Potential (TRP) = Used Revenue Potential (URP)+ Unutilized Revenue Potential (UnRP) The above equations are explained in the table below: Table 2: Methodology for Estimating URP and UnRP Revenue Source

Tax Coverage Ratio-% (TCR)

Assessed Ratio- % (AR)

Collection Efficiency Ratio -% (CER)

Used Revenue Potential (URP)

Holding tax

In case of holding tax, coverage ratio is the percentage (%) of holdings under PS tax net as per register and records to impose tax following the rules relevant. For instance, PS has 8000 holdings in its area as per field survery or records, but it could able to register only 6800 holdings for assessment. Here TCR is 85%.

The ratio is defined as the percentage(%) of the tax actualy assessed compated to the legally allowed maximum tax amount. For instance, tax assessor imposed tax to a holding with Tk. 25,000, but it was finally came down at 5000 through STC review.

Here AR is 20%.

The ratio is defined as the percentage(%) of the fees actualy imposed compated to

The ratio is defined as the holding tax collected in a fiscal year as a percentage(%) of its yearly demand. For instance, actual collection of holding tax in FY2017-18 was 225 BDT lakhs, out of its yearly demand of 285 BDT lakhs.

Here CER is 79%.

URP=TCRxARxC ER =85%x20%x79% =13.43%.

It means that PS is able to collect holding tax revenue 225 BDT lakhs by utilizing its 13.43% potentiality.

The ratio is defined as the trade licence collected in a fiscal year as a percentage (%) of its yearly

URP=TCRxARxC ER =80%x80%x75% =48%.

It means that PS was able to collect trade

Trade licence

In case of trade license, coverage ratio is the percentage (%) of business , trades, professions, etc. under PS tax net

Unutilized Revenue Potential (UnRP) UnRP= 1-URP , or 100%-URP(%)

=100-13.43% =86.57%

UnRP= 1-URP , or 100% -

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Revenue Source

Rental Shops

Leases of properties

Tax Coverage Ratio-% (TCR)

Assessed Ratio- % (AR)

Collection Efficiency Ratio -% (CER)

Used Revenue Potential (URP)

as per register and records to impose fees and rates. For instance, PS has 7500 trades in its area (as studied by a field survey/ records), but it could able to issue certificates only 6000 trades for licencens. Here TCR is 80%.

the legally allowed maximum amount. For instance, licence assessor imposed fees to a imdividual trade with Tk. 2000, but it was fixed at 2500 by Tax Model Shedule ,2014. Here AR is 80%.

The ratio is defined as the percentage(%) of the rents actualy collected compated to its prevailing market rates .

For instance, monthly rent of a shop is fixed Tk. 2000, but it is supposed to be at Tk2500 by market rates. Here AR is 80%.

estimated demand. For instance, actual collection of trade licence fees in FY201718 was 150 BDT lakhs, out of its yearly demand of 200 BDT lakhs.

Here CER is 75%.

licence fees 150 BDT lakhs by utilizing its 48% potentiality.

The ratio is defined as the rents collected in a fiscal year as a percentage (%) of its yearly demand. For instance, actual collection of rents in FY2017-18 was 90 BDT lakhs, out of its yearly demand of 120 BDT lakhs.

Here CER is 75%.

URP=TCRxARxC ER =90%x80%x75% =54%.

It means that PS is able to collect shop rents 90 BDT lakhs by utilizing its 54% potentiality.

In case of rental shops, coverage ratio is the percentage (%) of shops under legal and physical owneship of PS to collect rents. For instance, PS has 250 shops, but it can not collect rents from 25 shops due to legal conflicts or ownership problems . Here TCR is 90%.

same as above

|8

Unutilized Revenue Potential (UnRP) URP(%) =100%-48% =52%

UnRP= 1-URP , or 100% URP(%) =100%-54% =46%

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

However, earlier to estimate the revenue potentiality of a municipality, it should be first reviewed the legislative powers and process which has been delegated them for their local revenue generation, whether these all are reasonable in practices. It will help to realize the scope of the city administration to estimate the amount of potential revenue in pragmatic way. By law, municipalities in Bangladesh are empowered to collect revenue from there all potential sources legally permitted. The legal documents of the Pourashava are the following: • • •

Local Government (Pourashava) Act ,2009 (Amended 2010) Pourashava Model Tax Schedule 2014 Pourashava Tax Assessment and Collection System Rules,2013

Utilization of revenue sources with its full of potentiality depends on how much Pourashava practices the rules and procedures embedded in the above three legal documents by the national government to mobilize local resources for executing their local expenditure responsibilities and functions7. In a view to estimate the revenue potentiality in local contexts of Cox’s Bazar Pourashava, assessment and evaluation of the existing system of revenue practices on the basis of available data and information collected through primary and secondary sources during PS visit covering trends in own source revenue collection, available tax and non-tax sources, basis and rates applied in these sources, organizational capacity of revenue administration, revenue collection procedures and level of collection efficiency, possibilities of enhancement revenue collection were reviewed extensively.

Both analytical and discriptive study designs were followed for the analysis of revenue potential in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava. For analysis of secondary data various analytical tables were set up, whereas for analysis of primary data collected through discussions with PS officials were tabulated in different descriptive forms. For working out estimating future potential revenues of Cox’s Bazar Pourashava from tax and non-tax sources, historical growth rates was taken also as a benchmark, and it was assumed that the PS is able to stay with this growth trends in future.

|9

In a view to estimate the revenue potentiality in local contexts of Cox’s Bazar Pourashava, assessment and evaluation of the existing system of revenue practices on the basis of available data and information collected through primary and secondary sources during PS visit covering historical trends in own source revenue collection, available tax and non-tax sources, basis and rates applied in these sources, organizational capacity of revenue administration, revenue collection procedures and level of collection efficiency, possibilities of enhancement revenue collection were reviewed extensively.

Despite the thorough methodology, extensive use of available secondary data for the analysis, the consultant would like to note a number of limitations.

• • •

7

Limited scope of work within the objective of this study;.

Limited amount of time, in particular for the field days to gather information; Secondary data available was not always comprehensive due to short, inconsistent and irregular nature of data.

Local Government (Pourashava) Act, 2009 under rule 51 as ‘functions provided by the government’ states that ‘’Functions except

described in this ordinance, (1) municipality shall function as primary education, cure preventing health care, transport, fire control and fire safety and poverty reduction in municipal area etc. any type of charge and function after approval from government.(2) If the municipality is proposed to execute any other responsibility and function that the government found that is proper, then the government may order to execute through circular announcement.

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 10

4. Revenue potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava: Estimation results The section attempts to estimate the revenue potential in Cox’s Bazar Pourasahava. It is a mathematical approach. Previous section has described the methodology of estimating ‘Used Revenue Potential’ and Unutilized Revenue Potential’. It is as the relationship between the revenues collected (I,e. used revenue potential) and the revenues not collected but theoretically available (i.e unutilized revenue potential).The table 3 in below is the summary result of the this study.

Table 3 Revenue Potential layouts (%) Revenue items

Tax Coverage ratio- % (TCR)

Assessed ratio -% (AR)

Collection Efficiency Ratio -% (CER)

a Holding tax

b 87.24%8

c 13.98%9

d 85.80%10

Used Revenue Potential ratio (URP) e=bxcxd 10.46%

Unutilized Revenue Potential ratio -UnRP (1-URP) f=100% - e 89.54%

Trade licence Shop rents

65.2911 100%14

95.00%12 69.32%15

65.29%13 59.77%16

40.50% 41.44%

59.50% 58.56%

Property leases

100%17

79.11%18

100%19

79.11%

20.89%

Source : Sample data, Field servey, 22-24 October 2018

The table 3 shows,

8

•

the own source revenue with highst potentiality is clearely holding tax, followed by trade lincense, rental shops and leasing properties.

•

So it points out that Cox’s Bazar Pourashava have considerable potential i,e revenue reserve they could tap into the financing of basic services.

•

By exmaining in some detail, to see and to estimate the range of internal revenue potentiality for each of core revenue items (i.e. holding tax, trade license, rental shops and leasing properties) availble in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava, following presentation is given :

Annex 2 Consolidate result of the sampling of 366 holdings Annex 2 Consolidate result of the sampling of 366 holdings 10 Annex 7 Revenue Demand & Collection of FY 2017-18 11 Annex 3 Data Survey : Trade license 12 Annex 3(i) Data Survey : Trade license 13 Annex 7 Revenue Demand & Collection of FY 2017-18 14 Annex 4 Data Survey: Rental shops 15 Annex 4 Data Survey: Rental shops 16 Annex 7 Revenue Demand & Collection of FY2017-18 17 Annex 5 Data Survey: Leasing properties 18 Annex 5 Data Survey: Leasing properties 19 Annex 7 Revenue Demand & Collection of FY 2017-18 9

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 11

Holding taxes Figure 3.1 Holding tax potential layout 87.24% Coverage Ratio

Un Used Revenue Potential 89.54%

Assessed Ratio 13.98%

10.46%

Used Revenue Potential

Collection Efficiency 85.80%

Figure 3.1 shows 87.24% coverage of holdings. Each holding owner is subject to paying a yearly holding tax, fixed by PS is shown severely under assessed. The assessed ratio was found as 13.98%, and on which collection efficiency covers 85.80% (FY 2017-18). In theoretical, by multiplying these three variables (87.24% x 13.98% x 85.80%), it shows that Cox’s Bazar was able to use 10.46% its revenue potential from holding tax. It calculates that 89.56% (100%-10.46%) of the revenue potentiality of holding tax are still unused. Corresponding monetary value, and based on the holding 89.54 tax collected in FY2017-18,(BDT 667.80 lakh x ), Cox’s Bazar Pourashava has an option to 10.46 generate BDT 5,715 lakh more revenues from holding tax. However in local contexts20, the amount needs to be reviewed for a realistic projection as below:

Table3.1 Estimation of Revenue Potential from Holding Tax (BDT in lakh) Revenue collection from Holding tax in FY 2017-18 / Used Revenue potential (URP) a

Un utilized Revenue potential (UnRP) (based on assessment result)

BDT 667.80

BDT 5715.63

20

Clarified in page 9

b

Revised ‘Un utilized Revenue potential (UnRP)’ (based on local contexts) c= đ?‘? đ?‘Ľ

1 10

BDT 571.56

Total Revenue potential (URP+UnRP) d /(a+c) BDT 1,239.36

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 12

Trade licenses

Figure 3.2 Trade license potential layout Coverage Ratio 65.29%

Un-used Revenue Potential 59.50%

Assessed Ratio 95.00%

40.50%

65.29% Collection Efficiency

Used Revenue Potential

Figure 3.2 shows 65.29% coverage of trade license. Each business owner is subject to paying for license as fixed by Model Tax Schedule, which is shown 95.00 % as assessed ratio, and on which collection efficiency covers 65.29% (FY 2017-18). In theoretical, by multiplying these three variables (65.29% x 95.00% x 65.29%), it shows that Cox’s Bazar was able to use 40.50% its revenue potential from trade license. It calculates that 59.50% (100%- 40.50%) of the revenue potentiality for trade license are still unused. Corresponding monetary value, and based on the trade license collected in 59.50 FY2017-18,(TK. 324.60 lakh x ), Cox’s Bazar Pourashava has an option to generate BDT 476.88 40.50 lakh more revenues from trade licenses. However in local contexts, the amount needs to be reviewed for a realistic projection as below: Table3.2 Estimation of Revenue Potential from Trade licenses (BDT in lakh) Revenue collection from Trade License in FY 2017-18 / Used Revenue potential (URP) a BDT 324.60

Un utilized Revenue potential (UnRP) (based on assessment result)

Revised ‘Un utilized Revenue potential (UnRP)’ (based on local contexts)

B

c= đ?‘? đ?‘Ľ

BDT 476.88

1 3

BDT 158.96

Total Revenue potential (URP+UnRP) d /(a+c) BDT 483.56

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 13

Rental shops Figure 3.3 Rental shops potential layout 100.00% Coverage Ratio

Un-used Revenue Potential

Assessed Ratio

58.56%

69.32%

41.44% 59.77% Used Revenue Potential

Collection Efficiency

Figure 3.3 shows 100% coverage of rental shops. It means that all shops are in fully under ownership.

Each shop/vendor is subject to paying a monthly rent; set by PS Council is shown 69.32 % as assessed ratio, and on which collection efficiency covers 59.77%. In theoretical, by multiplying these three variables (100% x 69.32% x 59.77%), it shows that PS was able to use 41.44 % its revenue potential from rental shops. It calculates that 58.56% (100%-41.44%) of the revenue potentiality of rental shops are still unused. Corresponding monetary value, and based on the shops rent collected in 58.56 FY2017-18, (BDT 32.27 lakh x ) PS has an option to generate BDT 45.60 lakh more revenue 41.44 from rental shops. However in local contexts, the amount needs to be revised for a realistic projection as below: Table3.3 Estimation of Revenue Potential from Rental shops (BDT in lakh) Revenue collection from Rental shops in FY 2017-18 / Used Revenue potential (URP) a BDT 32.27

Un utilized Revenue potential (UnRP) (based on assessment result)

Revised ‘Un utilized Revenue potential (UnRP)’ (based on local contexts)

b

c= đ?‘? đ?‘Ľ

BDT 45.60

2 3

BDT 30.40

Total Revenue potential (URP+UnRP) d /(a+c) BDT 62.67

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 14

Leasing properties Figure 3.4 Leasing properties potential layout 100.00% Coverage Ratio

Un-used Revenue Potential

Assessed Ratio 79.11%

20.89%

Used Revenue Potential 79.11%

Collection Efficiency 100.00%

Figure 3.4 shows 100% coverage of leasing properties. It means that all leasing properties are under fully custody to PS ownership. Each leasing property is leased out by open tender with ensuring revenue at least equal to ‘government lease value’ as estimated / fixed by PS which is shown 79.11% as assessed ratio, and on which collection efficiency covers 100.00%. In theoretical, by multiplying these three variables (100% x 79.11% x 100%), it shows that PS was able to use 79.11 % its revenue potential from property leases. It calculates that 20.89% (100%-79.11%) of the revenue potentiality of property leases are still unused. .Corresponding monetary value, and based on the revenue collected 20.89 in FY2017-18,(BDT 243.18 lakh x ) PS has an option to generate BDT 64.21 lakh more revenue 79.11 from property leasing. However in local contexts, the amount needs to be revised for a realistic projection as below: Table3.4 Estimation of Revenue Potential from leasing properties (BDT in lakh) Revenue collection from Leasing properties in FY 2017-18 / Used Revenue potential (URP) a BDT 243.18

Un utilized Revenue potential (UnRP) (based on assessment result)

Revised ‘Un utilized Revenue potential (UnRP)’ (based on local contexts)

b

c= đ?‘? đ?‘Ľ

BDT 64.21

1 3

BDT 21.40

Total Revenue potential (URP+UnRP) d /(a+c) BDT 264.58

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 15

A summary presentation of the table 3.1, table 3.2, table 3.3, and 3.4 is given below in tabulated and graphically for at a glance overview: Table3.5 Summary Estimation of Revenue Potentials from Holding Tax, Trade license, rental shops, and leasing properties (BDT in lakh) Revenue Revenue Areas collection from in Un utilized Revenue Revised ‘Un utilized Total Revenue FY 2017-18 / Used potential (UnRP) Revenue potential potential Revenue (based on assessment (UnRP)’ (based on (URP+UnRP) potential (URP) result) local contexts) a Holding tax Trade license Rental shops Leasing properties Total

b

c

667.80 324.60 32.27 243.18 1267.85

5715.63 476.88 45.60 64.21 6302.32

Holding tax (BDT lakh)

Total Revenue potential (URP+UnRP) Revised ‘Un utilized Revenue potential (UnRP)’ (based on local contexts)

Revenue collection in FY 2017-18 / Used Revenue potential (URP)

483.56

Revised ‘Un utilized Revenue potential (UnRP)’ (based on local contexts)

571.56

5,715.63

158.96

Un utilized Revenue potential (UnRP) (based on assessment result)

476.88

Revenue collection in FY 2017-18 / Used Revenue potential (URP)

667.80

324.60

Leasing properties (BDT lakh)

Total Revenue potential (URP+UnRP)

Un utilized Revenue potential (UnRP) (based on assessment result)

571.56 158.96 30.40 21.40 782.32

Total Revenue potential (URP+UnRP)

1,239.36

Rental shops (BDT lakh)

Revised ‘Un utilized Revenue potential (UnRP)’ (based on local contexts)

e=(b+d) 1,239.36 483.56 62.67 264.58 2050.17

Trade license (BDT lakh)

Un utilized Revenue potential (UnRP) (based on assessment result) Revenue collection in FY 2017-18 / Used Revenue potential (URP)

d

62.67

30.40

45.60

32.27

Total Revenue potential (URP+UnRP) Revised ‘Un utilized Revenue potential (UnRP)’ (based on local contexts) Un utilized Revenue potential (UnRP) (based on assessment result) Revenue collection in FY 2017-18 / Used Revenue potential (URP)

264.58

21.40

64.21

243.18

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 16

5. Key factors limiting the revenue potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava The study discovered some limitations that encouter the revenue potentiality in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava. These all are presented in below table by 4 categories , i.e. institutional, technical , organizaional, and citizen awarness & participation aspects.

Institutional 21

Technical22

- Only Council members can be member of ‘Tax Standing Committee’ for reviewing of tax assessment appeals as per Pourashava Act.

- Limited actions to identify un-assessed and under assssed holdings and bring them in proper assessement taken.

- All are the members of the committee, have no member secretary.

- Valuation & Tax register is partly updated.

Trade license

- Mis match the ‘Model tax schedule 2014’ with local contexts in some extends particulary on business size

- Weak staff capacity to handle a detailed survey work for trade lincese.

- No update and detailed field survey of trades and business.

Rental shops

- Have no rules /circular to fix up a minimum rate/rents of the rental shops as like as model tax schedule.

- ‘Confict of Interest’ in allocation of rental shops and fixation/ refixation of rates/ rents.

- Disfavourable ‘Terms and conditions’ in signing of the contract of rental shops allotments.

Leassing properties

- Need govt. initiatives to allocate more Properties or Khas lands to PS

- ‘Confict of Interest’ in leasing out the properties.

- ‘Confict of Interest’ in leasing out the properties.

Revenue sources

Holding tax

21

Organizaional 23

Cityzen awarness & Participation 24

- Regular survey or field visits are limitedly ongoing to identify new holdings or improvements made to old one.

- Assessment process is not publicly well known.

- Cityzen awarness about tax payment is marginalized.

- Public reluctence on trade licence and its timely renewal.

-

- Limited number of tender submission.

Problems that are related to by laws, rules and legal procedures, supports by GOB are needed.

Problems that are caused by lack of enough knowledge and skills of officials and public representatives of Pourashava 23 Problems that are caused by Pourashava practices 24 Problems that are caused by lack of awareness and participation of citizens 22

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 17

6. Conclusions The main objective of this study was to see whether the Cox’s Bazar Pourashava has potentiality to raise more revenues. Study analysis has proven evidence they have enough revenue potentiality in holding tax, trade license, rental shops and property leases are still to be utilized.

That means, Cox’s Bazar Pourashava has not managed itself well & intensively to explore and expand its tax and non-taxes bases as it could.

Conclusions of this study report are given below:

a) Cox’s Bazar Pourashava has four major revenue areas from where they collected an amount of BDT 1267.85 lakhs in FY2017-18. b) There were several factors which affected the revenue potentials, if factors were positive to increase the revenue demand would have been increased by BDT 6302.32 lakhs, but factors reduced to BDT 782.32 lakhs which is 87.59% less than the potential revenue of BDT 6302.32 lakhs. c) However, the practical situation based on the local contexts, the calculated figure above in point (b) may be further considered for Cox’s Bazar Pourashava, and in that case an additional amount of BDT 782.32 lakhs was possible to generate from holding tax, trade license, rental shops and property leases which would have given Pourashava a total of BDT 2050.17 (BDT 1267.85 lakhs + BDT 782.32 lakhs), which is 61.70% above than the current revenue efforts. d) As there are many factors limiting the revenue potentials, so Cox’s Bazar Pourashava should focus to augment the revenue within the existing sources by plugging the leakages, improving the collection mechanism and change in the systems; Some of the measures for augmenting the revenues are, (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Detailed Action Plan for each revenue item Timely action Close monitoring Commitment.

e) Increase of holding tax and other sources will bring positive impact on service delivery.

Therefore, high priority is to be put on improvement of holding tax and other revenue sources in the strategy.

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 18

Annex 1

Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Holding Tax Pourashava : Cox's Bazar Com parison in betw een before and after re-assessm ent No. & percent increased Ward

No. of holdings before 2017-18 re-assessment

No. of holdings after 2017-18 re-assessment

No. of holdings tax increased

% of holdings increased

Remarks

Private holdings Ward-1

2753

2753

0

Ward-2

2088

2343

255

12.21%

Ward-3

953

1000

47

4.93%

Ward-4

1169

1200

31

2.65%

Ward-5

1553

1886

333

21.44%

Ward-6

1817

2282

465

25.59%

Ward-7

2150

2580

430

20.00%

Ward-8

970

1185

215

22.16%

Ward-9

1561

1724

163

10.44%

Ward-10

908

1034

126

13.88%

Ward-11

823

1082

259

31.47%

Ward-12

1516

1965

449

29.62%

Govt. holdings Ward 1-12 Total

0% Re-assessment not held

0 457

538

81

17.72%

18718

21572

2854

15.25%

Source: Assessment Section, Cox's Bazar Pourashava

Annex 2 Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Holding Tax Consolidated result of the sam pling of 366 holdings Pourashava :

Ward

Total holding (population)

Sampling size ( 2% of total holdings)

Primary Valuation (BDT)

Final Valuation (BDT)

Valuation Coverage ratio

Tax rate (%)

Cox's Bazar

Tax Imposed* Expected Tax (BDT) in (BDT) FY2017-18 Reassessment

Assessed Ratio (%)

Observation

Private holdings Ward-1

2753

0

Ward-2

2343

47

2,202,925

333,450

15.14%

20%

440,585

52,950

12.02%

Ward-3

1000

20

1,126,000

129,850

11.53%

20%

225,200

25,970

11.53%

Ward-4

1200

24

3,206,670

469,850

14.65%

20%

641,334

94,470

14.73%

Ward-5

1886

38

2,156,250

423,990

19.66%

20%

368,125

72,165

19.60%

Ward-6

2282

46

1,940,150

217,750

11.22%

20%

388,030

43,250

11.15%

Ward-7

2580

52

525,850

118,450

22.53%

20%

105,170

21,375

20.32%

Ward-8

1185

24

3,475,100

537,850

15.48%

20%

695,020

106,050

15.26%

Ward-9

1724

34

5,671,300

698,250

12.31%

20%

1,134,260

137,950

12.16%

Ward-10

1034

21

3,898,250

592,125

15.19%

20%

779,650

118,425

15.19%

Ward-11

1082

22

3,891,774

561,310

14.42%

20%

778,355

103,910

13.35%

5,555,729

776,515

13.98%

20%

84,193,718

1,952,600

2.32% Very high variation than other Wards

Total Ward 1 to 11 Ward-12 (sea beach area) Total Ward 1 to 12

19,069 1965 21,034

326 39 366

Re-assessment not held

28,094,269

4,082,875

14.53%

420,968,590

9,762,500

2.32%

449,062,859

13,845,375

3.08%

89,749,447

2,729,115

3.04%

449,062,859

13,845,375

3.08%

89,749,447

2,729,115

3.04%

Re-assessment un-coverage ratio: 12.76% Re-assessment Coverage ratio: 87.24%

Govt. holdings Ward 1-12 Total

538 21,572

0 366

Source : Cox's Bazar Pourashava Note/:(a) Breakdow ns in Annex 2(i) to 2(xi) (b) Re-assessment coverage ratio 87.24% is considered here as' holding tax coverage ration' puposively ( as no primary or secondary data in this issue w as not found available from any source. (c)Assessed Ratio for Ward 1-11 w as found 13.98% , and for Ward 12 it w as found 2.32%.( high variation). Based on numbers of sample holdings, 13.98% is considered for study results. (d)Primary Valuation’ refers to the annual value of a holding is assessed by Assessor; and ‘Final Valuation’ refers to the taxable annual value of a holding after finalization by Pourashava on w hich tax to be calculated. ‘Expected tax’ refers to the amount that could be imposed as tax as per ‘Primary Valuation’; and ‘Tax Imposed’ refers to the tax amount to be paid by a holding ow ner based on ‘Final Valuation’ of a holding

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 20

Annex 2(i) Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey: Holding Tax Total holdings in Ward-2

2343

Sam pling#

2%

No. 47

Pourashava :

Holding Number & Name

Sl.

a

.

Nr.

Name

b

c

Ward

Primary Valuation (BDT)

Final Valuation (BDT)

d

e

f

Valuation Tax rate Expected * Coverage (%) Tax (BDT) ratio

g

h/(f/e)%

i

Cox's Bazar

Tax Imposed* (BDT) in FY2017-18 Reassessment

Assessed Ratio (%)

Remarks

j

k/(j/i)%

l

1

1 Gias Uddin

2

50,000

9,600

19.20%

20%

10,000

1,600

2

2 Alhaj Haru Shukur

2

732,000

46,200

6.31%

20%

146,400

7,700

5.26%

3

3 Najmul Kairm Bahar

2

175,000

34,800

19.89%

20%

35,000

5,800

16.57%

16.00%

4

5(1) Nurul Alam

2

45,000

9,000

20.00%

20%

9,000

1,500

16.67%

5

6 Jamir Uddin

2

16,000

3,000

18.75%

20%

3,200

500

15.63%

6

12 CCDB Office

2

70,000

21,000

30.00%

20%

14,000

700

5.00%

7

13 Asor Uddiin

2

41,250

4,200

10.18%

20%

8,250

700

8.48%

8

15 Abdul Mannan

2

75,000

15,000

20.00%

20%

15,000

2,500

16.67%

9

16 Md. Rafik

2

18,750

3,600

19.20%

20%

3,750

600

16.00%

10

17 Md. Faridul Alam

2

45,000

9,000

20.00%

20%

9,000

1,500

16.67%

11

18 Sayed Hossain

2

22,500

4,200

18.67%

20%

4,500

700

15.56%

12

19 Mostak Ahmed

2

15,000

3,300

22.00%

20%

3,000

550

18.33%

13

20 Najir Hossain

2

26,250

4,800

18.29%

20%

5,250

800

15.24%

14

21 Anw ar Hossain

2

18,750

2,400

12.80%

20%

3,750

400

10.67%

15

22 Saleha Begum

2

52,500

10,200

19.43%

20%

10,500

1,700

16.19%

16

23 Khadeza Begum

2

33,750

6,600

19.56%

20%

6,750

1,100

16.30%

17

24 Abdul Kader

2

54,400

7,200

13.24%

20%

10,880

1,200

11.03%

18

26 Najir Ahmed

2

11,000

2,100

19.09%

20%

2,200

350

15.91%

19

27 Harunur Rashid

2

9,750

1,800

18.46%

20%

1,950

300

15.38%

20

28 Rokeya Begum

2

18,000

3,600

20.00%

20%

3,600

600

16.67%

21

29 Abdul Kabir

2

52,500

10,200

19.43%

20%

10,500

1,700

16.19%

22

30 Abdul Kabir

2

70,000

13,800

19.71%

20%

14,000

2,300

16.43%

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Holding Number & Name

Sl.

Nr.

Name

a

b

c

23

30(1) Hazi Kabir Ahmed

Ward

Primary Valuation (BDT)

Final Valuation (BDT)

d

e

f

Valuation Tax rate Expected * Coverage (%) Tax (BDT) ratio

g

h/(f/e)%

i

Tax Imposed* (BDT) in FY2017-18 Reassessment

Assessed Ratio (%)

Remarks

j

k/(j/i)%

l

2

37,400

7,200

19.25%

20%

7,480

1,200

16.04%

24

31 Jamal Uddin

2

8,000

1,500

18.75%

20%

1,600

250

15.63%

25

37 Badsha Miah

2

42,000

8,400

20.00%

20%

8,400

1,400

16.67%

26

38 Hazi Najir Ahmed

2

46,000

9,000

19.57%

20%

9,200

1,500

16.30%

27

39 Mujibur Rahman

2

16,000

2,400

15.00%

20%

3,200

500

15.63%

28

40 Nurul Alam

2

149,000

35,400

23.76%

20%

29,800

5,900

19.80%

29

42 Nurul Alam

2

40,000

7,800

19.50%

20%

8,000

1,300

16.25%

30

43 Sheikh Abdur Rahim

2

37,500

7,200

19.20%

20%

7,500

1,200

16.00%

44 Hanufa Begum

2

9,750

3,000

30.77%

20%

1,950

500

25.64%

2

12,000

2,700

22.50%

20%

2,400

450

18.75%

31 32

44(1) Md. Rajon Sw audagor

33

45 Altaf Sami

2

2,250

600

26.67%

20%

450

100

22.22%

34

46 Babul Hossen

2

2,250

600

26.67%

20%

450

100

22.22%

2

11,750

1,800

15.32%

20%

2,350

300

12.77% 56.41%

35

47(1) Lalbanu

36

48 Abul Hossen

2

9,750

6,600

67.69%

20%

1,950

1,100

37

49 Sahab Uddin

2

33,750

1,200

3.56%

20%

6,750

200

2.96%

38

50 Naju Miah

2

6,750

1,200

17.78%

20%

1,350

200

14.81%

39

51 Nazrul Islam

2

3,375

900

26.67%

20%

675

150

22.22%

40

53 Md. Ali

2

3,750

900

24.00%

20%

750

150

20.00%

41

54 Abdul Kuddus

2

4,500

1,500

33.33%

20%

900

250

27.78%

42

55 Rehena Begum

2

41,000

1,200

2.93%

20%

8,200

200

2.44%

43

56 Senuara Begum

2

9,750

2,400

24.62%

20%

1,950

400

20.51%

44

57 Nurul Haque

2

10,500

2,100

20.00%

20%

2,100

350

16.67%

45

59 Nurul Alam

2

4,500

750

16.67%

20%

900

150

16.67%

46

60 Abdur Rahim

2

4,500

750

16.67%

20%

900

150

16.67%

47

61 Hamid Hossen

2

4,500

750

16.67%

20%

900

150

16.67%

2,202,925

333,450

15.14%

440,585

52,950

12.02%

Total

Note:/ Cluster sampling method w as used here. Cluster w as made on the basis of data available in ''Uo Register' of holding tax w ith a serial boundary from 01-61. Only interval w as given w here data could not be found fully available in the register same.

| 21

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 22

Annex 2(ii) Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Holding Tax Total holdings in Ward-3

1000

Sam pling#

2%

No. 20

Pourashava :

Holding Number & Name

Sl.

a

Nr.

b

Name

Ward

Primary Valuation (BDT)

Final Valuation (BDT)

Valuation Tax rate Expected * Coverage (%) Tax (BDT) ratio

1

c 1 Hazi Jalal Ahmed

d 3

e 75,000

f 12,500

g h/(f/e)% 16.67% 20%

2

2 Abu Taher

3

18,750

3,000

16.00%

20%

3

3 Momotaz Begum

3

11,250

1,100

9.78%

20%

4

4 Monkur Talukder

3

11,250

1,750

15.56%

5

5 Abu Serod

3

3,750

1,250

33.33%

6

6 Mostak Master

3

216,250

36,000

7

7 Saiful Islam

3

37,500

8

8 Nurul Islam

3

9

9 Abul Hossian

3

i 15,000

Tax Imposed* (BDT) in FY2017-18 Reassessment j

Cox's Bazar

Assessed Ratio (%)

2,500

k/(j/i)% 16.67%

3,750

600

16.00%

2,250

220

9.78%

20%

2,250

350

15.56%

20%

750

250

33.33%

16.65%

20%

43,250

7,200

16.65%

6,250

16.67%

20%

7,500

1,250

16.67%

26,250

3,500

13.33%

20%

5,250

700

13.33%

6,000

1,500

25.00%

20%

1,200

300

25.00%

10

10 Alia Khatun

3

9,500

1,500

15.79%

20%

1,900

300

15.79%

11

11 Shekham Uddin

3

252,500

25,000

9.90%

20%

50,500

5,000

9.90%

12

12 Hazi Abbas Uddin

3

252,500

4,250

1.68%

20%

50,500

850

1.68%

13

13 Jane Alam Putu

3

60,750

10,000

16.46%

20%

12,150

2,000

16.46%

14

14 Md. Hanif

3

24,000

4,000

16.67%

20%

4,800

800

16.67%

15

15 Abu Taher

3

24,000

4,000

16.67%

20%

4,800

800

16.67%

16

16 Julfikar Ali

3

30,000

5,000

16.67%

20%

6,000

1,000

16.67%

17

17 Khurshid Alam

3

24,750

4,000

16.16%

20%

4,950

800

16.16%

18

18 Kamal Pasha

3

12,000

1,500

12.50%

20%

2,400

300

12.50%

19

19 Bilkis Begum

3

7,500

1,250

16.67%

20%

1,500

250

16.67%

20

20 Nurul Alam

3

22,500

2,500

11.11%

20%

4,500

500

11.11%

1,126,000

129,850

11.53%

225,200

25,970

11.53%

Total

Remarks

l

Note:/ Cluster sampling method w as used here. Cluster w as made on the basis of data available in ''Uo Register' of holding tax w ith a serial boundary from 01-20. Only interval w as given w here data could not be found fully available in the register same.

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 23

Annex 2(iii) Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Holding Tax Total holdings in Ward-4

1200

Sam pling#

Holding Number & Name Sl.

a

Nr.

Name

b

c

Ward

Primary Valuation (BDT)

2%

No. 24

Pourashava : Tax Imposed* Final Valuation Tax Tax rate (BDT) in Valuation Coverage Imposable (%) FY2017-18 (BDT) ratio (BDT) Reassessment f g h/(f/e)% i j 175,000 16.67% 20% 210,000 35,000

Cox's Bazar

Assessed Ratio (%)

1

1 Fatema Khatun

d 4

e 1,050,000

k/(j/i)% 16.67%

2

2 Fatema Khatun

4

50,000

8,000

16.00%

20%

10,000

1,600

16.00%

3

4 Nurul Amin

4

18,000

2,500

13.89%

20%

3,600

500

13.89%

4

5 Titu Paul Gang

4

20,000

3,350

16.75%

20%

4,000

670

16.75%

5

6 Sw apan Paul

4

22,000

3,500

15.91%

20%

4,400

700

15.91%

6

7 Kali Charan Paul

4

24,000

4,750

19.79%

20%

4,800

950

19.79%

7

15 Hazi Yakub

4

262,500

27,500

10.48%

20%

52,500

5,500

10.48%

8

16 Mohammad Elias

4

278,500

32,500

11.67%

20%

55,700

6,500

11.67%

9

17 Nazmul Haque

4

202,500

34,000

16.79%

20%

40,500

6,800

16.79%

10

18 Md. Ikbal Jakaria

4

149,000

25,000

16.78%

20%

29,800

5,000

16.78%

11

19 Nobita Das Gupta

4

182,250

25,000

13.72%

20%

36,450

5,000

13.72%

12

20 Kasir Hossain

4

65,200

6,000

9.20%

20%

13,040

1,200

9.20%

13

21 Miju Sang Chow dhury

4

150,000

20,000

13.33%

20%

30,000

4,000

13.33%

14

22 Sangar

4

30,000

5,000

16.67%

20%

6,000

1,500

25.00%

15

23 Sangburi

4

22,500

3,000

13.33%

20%

4,500

600

13.33%

16

24 Kalim Ullah

4

48,720

6,000

12.32%

20%

9,744

1,200

12.32%

17

25 Nasir Hossain

4

30,000

5,000

16.67%

20%

6,000

1,000

16.67%

18

26 Hazi Zafor Ullah Chow dhury

4

216,500

36,000

16.63%

20%

43,300

7,200

16.63%

19

28 Abdur Rahman

4

166,000

24,000

14.46%

20%

33,200

4,800

14.46%

20

29 Nurul Alam Master

4

8,000

1,250

15.63%

20%

1,600

250

15.63%

21

20 Nurul Alam Master

4

21,000

2,500

11.90%

20%

4,200

500

11.90%

22

31 Nurul Alam Master

4

60,000

2,500

4.17%

20%

12,000

500

4.17%

23

32 Nurul Alam Master

4

20,000

2,500

12.50%

20%

4,000

500

12.50%

24

35 Abdullah

4

110,000

15,000

13.64%

20%

22,000

3,000

13.64%

Remarks

l

Total 3,206,670 469,850 14.65% 641,334 94,470 14.73% Note:/ Cluster sampling method w as used here. Cluster w as made on the basis of data available in ''Uo Register' of holding tax w ith a serial boundary from 01-35. Only interval w as given w here data could not be found fully available in the register same.

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 24

Annex 2(iv) Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Holding Tax Total holdings in Ward-5

1886 Sam pling#

2%

No. 38

Pourashava : Cox's Bazar

Holding Number & Name

Sl.

a

Nr.

Name

b 1 2

c 1 Md. Nasir Uddin

3(1) Abul Kashem

Tax Imposed* (BDT) in FY2017-18 Reassessment

Assessed Ratio (%)

Remarks

j

k/(j/i)%

l

Primary Valuation (BDT)

Final Valuation (BDT)

d

e

f

5

282,500

56,520

20.01%

17%

47,083

9,420

20.01%

Ward

Valuation Tax rate Expected * Coverage (%) Tax (BDT) ratio

g

h/(f/e)%

i

5

275,000

55,020

20.01%

17%

45,833

9,170

20.01%

3

3 Shahena Rashid

5

37,500

7,500

20.00%

17%

6,250

1,250

20.00%

4

1(1) Jahanara Begum

5

37,500

7,500

20.00%

17%

6,250

1,250

20.00%

5

1(2) Ahsan Ullah

5

60,000

12,000

20.00%

17%

10,000

2,000

20.00%

6

1(3) Habibullah

5

70,000

14,100

20.14%

17%

11,667

2,350

20.14%

7

2 Md. Ferdous

5

41,250

8,250

20.00%

17%

6,875

1,375

20.00%

8

4 Jahura Begum

5

18,750

3,750

20.00%

17%

3,125

625

20.00%

9

5 Shafiullah

5

23,750

7,500

31.58%

20%

4,750

1,500

31.58%

10

7 Masuduzzaman

5

80,000

16,020

20.03%

17%

13,333

2,670

20.03%

11

8 Rafiqul Islam Ripon

5

80,000

16,020

20.03%

17%

13,333

2,670

20.03%

9 Nurul Islam

12

5

40,000

13,000

32.50%

20%

8,000

2,600

32.50%

13

10 Alhaj Md. Kashem

5

365,000

73,020

20.01%

17%

60,833

12,170

20.01%

14

12 Abul Kalam

5

11,250

2,250

20.00%

17%

1,875

375

20.00%

15

12(1) Jafor Alam

5

11,250

2,250

20.00%

17%

1,875

375

20.00%

16

12(2) Surut Alam

5

11,250

2,250

20.00%

17%

1,875

375

20.00%

17

13 Abdul Rahman Rasel

5

52,500

10,500

20.00%

17%

8,750

1,750

20.00%

18

19 Dalilur Rahman

5

20,000

4,020

20.10%

17%

3,333

670

20.10%

19

20 Dalilur Rahman

5

20,000

4,020

20.10%

17%

3,333

670

20.10%

20

21 Syed Shadedur Rahman

5

30,000

4,000

13.33%

20%

6,000

800

13.33%

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Holding Number & Name

Sl.

Nr.

Name

Ward

Primary Valuation (BDT)

Final Valuation (BDT)

Valuation Tax rate Expected * Coverage (%) Tax (BDT) ratio

Tax Imposed* (BDT) in FY2017-18 Reassessment

Assessed Ratio (%)

21

22 Moulvi Sadrul Amin

5

33,750

5,000

14.81%

20%

6,750

1,000

14.81%

22

23 Selim Ullah Jahir

5

45,000

9,000

20.00%

17%

7,500

1,500

20.00%

23

23 Najir Ahmed

5

45,000

4,500

10.00%

20%

9,000

900

10.00%

24

25 Shamsul Alam

5

37,500

7,500

20.00%

17%

6,250

1,250

20.00%

25

26 Rashid Ahmed

5

45,000

5,500

12.22%

20%

9,000

1,100

12.22%

26

27 Shohrab Hossain

5

30,000

6,000

20.00%

17%

5,000

1,000

20.00%

5

22,500

2,500

11.11%

20%

4,500

500

11.11%

27

27(1) Mahmudul Hassan

28

28 Ramjan Ali

5

26,250

5,250

20.00%

17%

4,375

875

20.00%

29

29 Elmunnahar

5

22,500

4,500

20.00%

17%

3,750

750

20.00%

30

30 Jahedul Islam

5

15,000

3,000

20.00%

17%

2,500

500

20.00%

31

32 Md. Reduan

5

45,000

9,000

20.00%

17%

7,500

1,500

20.00%

32

33 Moshiru Rahman

5

22,500

4,500

20.00%

17%

3,750

750

20.00%

33

34 Mofijur Rahman

5

18,750

3,750

20.00%

17%

3,125

625

20.00%

34

35 Harun-ur-Rashid

5

60,000

12,000

20.00%

17%

10,000

2,000

20.00%

35

37 Surut Ali

5

37,500

7,500

20.00%

17%

6,250

1,250

20.00%

36

38 Khaleda Begum

5

37,500

7,500

20.00%

17%

6,250

1,250

20.00%

37

38(1) Mosaddeka Begum

5

22,500

3,000

13.33%

20%

4,500

600

13.33%

5

22,500

4,500

20.00%

17%

3,750

750

20.00%

2,156,250

423,990

19.66%

368,125

72,165

19.60%

38

39 Abul Hossen Total

Remarks

Note:/ Cluster sampling method w as used here. Cluster w as made on the basis of data available in ''Uo Register' of holding tax w ith a serial boundary from 01-39. Only interval w as given w here data could not be found fully available in the register same.

| 25

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 26

Annex 2(v) Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Holding Tax Total holdings in Ward-6

2282 Sam pling#

2%

No. 46

Pourashava : Cox's Bazar

Holding Number & Name

Sl.

a

Nr.

b

Name

Ward

Primary Valuation (BDT)

Final Valuation (BDT)

Valuation Tax rate Expected * Coverage (%) Tax (BDT) ratio

1

c 1 Shamsul Alam Shikder

d 6

e 112,500

f 11,000

2

2 Md. Bokhtiar Kamal

6

63,750

10,000

15.69%

20%

3

3 Alhaz Momtazul Haque

6

87,000

12,500

14.37%

20%

7 Mostaq Ahmed

4

g h/(f/e)% 9.78% 20%

i 22,500

Tax Imposed* (BDT) in FY2017-18 Reassessment j

Assessed Ratio (%)

2,200

k/(j/i)% 9.78%

12,750

2,000

15.69%

17,400

2,500

14.37%

6

90,000

10,000

11.11%

20%

18,000

2,000

11.11%

5

10 Md. Sultan

6

140,000

20,000

14.29%

20%

28,000

4,000

14.29%

6

19 Nurul Islam Helali

6

60,000

4,000

6.67%

20%

12,000

800

6.67%

7

22 Rokeya Khanam

6

7,500

1,500

20.00%

20%

1,500

300

20.00%

8

23 Monjura Khanam

6

22,500

4,000

17.78%

20%

4,500

800

17.78%

9

28 Nurul Amin

6

7,500

1,500

20.00%

20%

1,500

300

20.00%

10

29 Akter Ahmed Chow dhury

6

25,000

4,500

18.00%

20%

5,000

900

18.00%

11

30 Md. Rasel Chow dury

6

33,750

7,500

22.22%

20%

6,750

1,500

22.22%

12

34 Nasir Uddin

6

22,500

3,000

13.33%

20%

4,500

600

13.33%

13

35 Faridul Alam

6

11,250

1,500

13.33%

20%

2,250

300

13.33%

14

39 Abu Shukkur

6

3,750

1,250

33.33%

20%

750

250

33.33%

15

43 Abdu Salam

6

11,250

1,500

13.33%

20%

2,250

300

13.33%

16

44 Jahura Khatun

6

3,000

750

25.00%

20%

600

150

25.00%

17

45 Mohammad Younus

6

22,500

4,000

17.78%

20%

4,500

800

17.78%

18

46 Mahbuba Nasrin Reshmi

6

30,000

4,000

13.33%

20%

6,000

800

13.33%

19

49 Fazlul Karim

6

175,000

12,500

7.14%

20%

35,000

2,500

7.14%

20

53 Hafez Nurul Absar

6

242,000

10,000

4.13%

20%

48,400

2,000

4.13%

Remarks

l

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Holding Number & Name

Sl.

a

Nr.

Name

b

Ward

Primary Valuation (BDT)

Final Valuation (BDT)

f

Valuation Tax rate Expected * Coverage (%) Tax (BDT) ratio

c

d

e

21

54 Khaleda Begum

6

60,000

4,000

6.67%

20%

22

55 Shahidul Islam Mintu

6

15,000

3,000

20.00%

20%

23

56 Kashem

6

102,500

8,000

7.80%

20%

24

60 Abdus Shukkur

6

22,500

5,000

22.22%

20%

25

65 Md. Ishaq

6

7,500

1,750

23.33%

20%

26

66 Alo Khatun

6

7,500

1,250

16.67%

27

73 Khadiza Begum

6

3,750

1,750

28

83 Amena Khatun

6

3,750

29

85 Halima Begum

6

30

86 Sirajul Islam

6

31 32 33

86(1) Nurul Huda 87 Md. Ismail Hossain

h/(f/e)%

i

12,000

Assessed Ratio (%)

Remarks

j

k/(j/i)%

l

800

6.67%

3,000

700

23.33%

20,500

1,600

7.80%

4,500

600

13.33%

1,500

350

23.33%

20%

1,500

250

16.67%

46.67%

20%

750

350

46.67%

1,750

46.67%

20%

750

350

46.67%

6,000

1,250

20.83%

20%

1,200

250

20.83%

9,000

1,500

16.67%

20%

1,800

300

16.67%

6

61,250

6,000

9.80%

20%

12,250

1,200

9.80%

6

68,750

7,500

10.91%

20%

13,750

1,500

10.91%

6

7,500

1,500

20.00%

20%

1,500

300

20.00%

34

88 Azim Sharif Kamal

6

137,250

10,000

7.29%

20%

27,450

2,000

7.29%

35

90 Profession Mahamudul Haque

6

10,000

3,000

30.00%

20%

2,000

600

30.00%

36

91 Jahan Ara Aktar

6

103,250

15,000

14.53%

20%

20,650

3,000

14.53%

37

92 Salim Ullah

6

11,250

2,000

17.78%

20%

2,250

400

17.78%

38

93 Sayed Ullah

6

11,250

1,750

15.56%

20%

2,250

350

15.56%

39

94 Mohammad Mostafizur Rahman

6

7,500

1,250

16.67%

20%

1,500

250

16.67%

98 Amin Ullah

40

87(1) Jashim Uddin

g

Tax Imposed* (BDT) in FY2017-18 Reassessment

6

60,000

5,000

8.33%

20%

12,000

1,000

8.33%

100 Guri Miah

6

3,000

750

25.00%

20%

600

150

25.00%

42 105(1) Fatema Khatun

6

2,250

750

33.33%

20%

450

150

33.33%

43

108 Tamiz Uddin

6

26,150

4,000

15.30%

20%

5,230

800

15.30%

44

110 Amina Khatun

6

11,250

2,000

17.78%

20%

2,250

400

17.78%

45 110(1) Mahabubul Haque Gong

6

7,500

1,750

23.33%

20%

1,500

350

23.33%

46

6

3,750

1,250

33.33%

20%

750

250

33.33%

1,940,150

217,750

11.22%

388,030

43,250

11.15%

41

112 Nasir Total

Note:/ Cluster sampling method w as used here. Cluster w as made on the basis of data available in ''Uo Register' of holding tax w ith a serial boundary from 01-112. Only interval w as given w here data could not be found fully available in the register same.

| 27

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 28

Annex 2(vi) Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Holding Tax Total holdings in Ward-7

2580 Sam pling

2%

No. 52

Pourashava : Cox's Bazar

Holding Number & Name

Sl.

a

Nr.

Name

b 1 2

c

Ward

4 Sharif Hossen

d 7

5 Md. Abul Hossen

Primary Valuation (BDT)

Final Valuation (BDT)

e

f

Valuation Tax rate Expected * Coverage (%) Tax (BDT) ratio

4,500

1,500

g h/(f/e)% 33.33% 20%

i

Tax Imposed* (BDT) in FY2017-18 Reassessment j

Assessed Ratio (%)

900

300

k/(j/i)% 33.33%

7

7,500

1,500

20.00%

20%

1,500

300

20.00%

3

5(1) Abul Kashem

7

11,050

2,250

20.36%

20%

2,210

450

20.36%

4

5(2) Md. Syed Kashem

7

3,000

1,750

58.33%

20%

600

350

58.33%

5

5(3) Hossen Ali

7

6,000

1,750

29.17%

20%

1,200

350

29.17%

6

5(4) Syed Karim

7

3,750

1,950

52.00%

20%

750

350

46.67%

7

6 Md. Younus

7

4,500

1,500

33.33%

20%

900

300

33.33%

8

7 Rabeya Begum

7

6,000

1,200

20.00%

20%

1,200

200

16.67%

9

8 Ambia Khatun

7

3,750

1,250

33.33%

20%

750

250

33.33%

10

9 Abdul Hamid

7

6,000

1,000

16.67%

20%

1,200

200

16.67%

11

10 Manruzzaman

7

11,050

2,250

20.36%

20%

2,210

375

16.97%

12

11 Md. Jaman

7

7,500

1,750

23.33%

20%

1,500

350

23.33%

13

12 Nurul Alam

7

4,500

1,200

26.67%

20%

900

200

22.22%

14

12(1) Laki Akhter

7

3,000

1,500

50.00%

20%

600

300

50.00%

15

13 Abdul Gafur

7

11,050

2,400

21.72%

20%

2,210

400

18.10%

16

14 Umeda Khatun

7

9,000

1,750

19.44%

20%

1,800

350

19.44%

7

2,250

500

22.22%

20%

450

100

22.22%

17

14(1) Mohammad Hossen

18

15 Hazi Shamsul Haque Shikder

7

11,250

2,100

18.67%

20%

2,250

350

15.56%

19

16 Mohammad Selim

7

6,000

1,200

20.00%

20%

1,200

200

16.67%

20

17 Md. Zia Uddin

7

13,500

2,750

20.37%

20%

2,700

550

20.37%

21

18 Nurul Amin

7

15,000

3,300

22.00%

20%

3,000

550

18.33%

22

19 Hazi Shamsul Haque Shikder

7

4,500

900

20.00%

20%

900

150

16.67%

23

20 Jahangir Alam

7

11,250

2,000

17.78%

20%

2,250

400

17.78%

24

21 Mohammad Ali

7

6,000

1,200

20.00%

20%

1,200

200

16.67%

25

22 Rehena Akhter

7

30,000

6,000

20.00%

20%

6,000

1,200

20.00%

Remarks

l

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Holding Number & Name

Sl.

a

Nr.

Name

b

c

Ward

Primary Valuation (BDT)

Final Valuation (BDT)

f

Valuation Tax rate Expected * Coverage (%) Tax (BDT) ratio

Tax Imposed* (BDT) in FY2017-18 Reassessment

Assessed Ratio (%)

Remarks

j

k/(j/i)%

l

d

e

26

23 Joynal Abedin

7

30,000

6,000

20.00%

20%

6,000

1,200

20.00%

27

24 Noor Moahammad

7

30,000

7,500

25.00%

20%

6,000

1,200

20.00%

28

25 Sultana Razia

7

9,750

1,950

20.00%

20%

1,950

325

16.67%

29

30 Kabir Ahmed

7

9,000

2,250

25.00%

20%

1,800

450

25.00%

30

31 Najir Hossain Gong

7

11,200

2,250

20.09%

20%

2,240

375

16.74%

31

32 Kamal Mistry

7

5,250

1,750

33.33%

20%

1,050

350

33.33%

32

32(1) Habibur Rahman

7

78,750

15,000

19.05%

20%

15,750

2,500

15.87%

g

h/(f/e)%

i

33

33 Mostafizur Rahman

7

33,750

6,600

19.56%

20%

6,750

1,100

16.30%

34

34 Abul Mabud

7

9,750

1,250

12.82%

20%

1,950

250

12.82%

35

35 Noor Nahar Begum

7

15,000

1,500

10.00%

20%

3,000

300

10.00%

36

35(1) Hazi Obaidul Haque

7

7,500

1,750

23.33%

20%

1,500

350

23.33%

37

36 Abul Kalam Gong

7

6,750

1,500

22.22%

20%

1,350

250

18.52%

38

37 Dr. Fakru

7

3,750

900

24.00%

20%

750

150

20.00%

39

38 Khale Ahmad

7

5,250

1,200

22.86%

20%

1,050

200

19.05%

40

39 Abdul Motaleb

7

5,250

1,200

22.86%

20%

1,050

200

19.05%

41

40 Romjan Ali

7

6,750

1,250

18.52%

20%

1,350

250

18.52%

7

7,500

1,500

20.00%

20%

1,500

250

16.67%

42

40(1) Ershad

43

41 Hosen Ara

7

3,750

900

24.00%

20%

750

150

20.00%

44

42 Khairul Bashar

7

3,000

6,000

200.00%

20%

600

1,000

166.67%

45

43 Shamima Akther

7

3,750

1,750

46.67%

20%

750

350

46.67%

46

44 Mohiuddin Muku Gong

7

7,500

1,000

13.33%

20%

1,500

200

13.33%

47

45 Noor Mohammad

7

6,000

1,200

20.00%

20%

1,200

200

16.67%

48

46 Noor Nahar Begum

7

3,750

900

24.00%

20%

750

150

20.00%

49

47 Sajeda Begum

7

3,750

900

24.00%

20%

750

150

20.00%

50

48 Fatema Begum

7

6,000

1,250

20.83%

20%

1,200

250

20.83%

51

49 Sirajul Islam

7

7,500

1,500

20.00%

20%

1,500

250

16.67%

52

50 Md. Farid Gong

7

3,750

1,250

33.33%

20%

750

250

33.33%

525,850

118,450

22.53%

105,170

21,375

20.00%

Total

Note:/ Cluster sampling method w as used here. Cluster w as made on the basis of data available in ''Uo Register' of holding tax w ith a serial boundary from 04-50. Only interval w as given w here data could not be found fully available in the register same.

| 29

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 30

Annex 2(vii) Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Holding Tax Total holdings in Ward-8

1185

Sam pling#

2%

No. 24

Pourashava : Cox's Bazar

Holding Number & Name

Sl.

a

Nr.

Name

b

c

Ward

Primary Valuation (BDT)

Final Valuation (BDT)

d

e

f

Valuation Tax rate Expected * Coverage (%) Tax (BDT) ratio

g

h/(f/e)%

i

Tax Imposed* (BDT) in FY2017-18 Reassessment

Assessed Ratio (%)

Remarks

j

k/(j/i)%

l

1

1 Master Monir Ahmed

8

22,500

3,750

16.67%

20%

4,500

700

15.56%

2

2 M. Kabir Ahmed

8

450,000

65,000

14.44%

20%

90,000

13,000

14.44%

3

6 Farid Uddin Chow dhury

8

37,500

6,000

16.00%

20%

7,500

1,200

16.00%

4

7 Shamsul Alam

8

45,000

7,500

16.67%

20%

9,000

1,500

16.67%

5

8 Belal Uddin

8

11,250

2,000

17.78%

20%

2,250

400

17.78%

6

9 Adv. Md. Alam

8

37,500

4,000

10.67%

20%

7,500

800

10.67%

7

10 Almas Ahmed

8

30,000

5,000

16.67%

20%

6,000

1,000

16.67%

8

11 Najor Ahmed

8

400,000

66,500

16.63%

20%

80,000

13,300

16.63%

9

12 Shah Alam

8

400,000

66,500

16.63%

20%

80,000

13,300

16.63%

10

13 Adv. Nasir Uddin Ahmed Gong

8

67,500

13,500

20.00%

20%

13,500

2,250

16.67%

11

14 Nurul Islam

8

337,600

27,500

8.15%

20%

67,520

5,500

8.15%

12

15 Hazera Khatun

8

22,500

4,500

20.00%

20%

4,500

900

20.00%

13

16 Hazi Md. Nurul New az Selim

8

150,000

22,500

15.00%

20%

30,000

4,500

15.00%

14

17 Alhaj Mostak Ahmed

8

75,000

8,500

11.33%

20%

15,000

1,700

11.33%

15

18 Asma Khatun

8

18,750

3,000

16.00%

20%

3,750

600

16.00%

16

19 Mong Kacha Gong

8

260,000

43,500

16.73%

20%

52,000

8,700

16.73%

17

20 Mong Kotnin Gong

8

92,500

18,600

20.11%

20%

18,500

3,100

16.76%

18

21 Kader House

8

445,000

75,000

16.85%

20%

89,000

14,800

16.63%

19

22 Adv. Md. Jobair

8

41,250

6,000

14.55%

20%

8,250

1,200

14.55%

20

23 Md. Salauddin Chow dhury

8

15,000

3,500

23.33%

20%

3,000

500

16.67%

21

24 Halima Begum

8

15,000

2,500

16.67%

20%

3,000

500

16.67%

22

25 Monsur Alam

8

375,000

62,500

16.67%

20%

75,000

12,500

16.67%

23

26 Mahmudul Haque

8

100,000

16,500

16.50%

20%

20,000

3,300

16.50%

24

27 Abdul Karim

8

26,250

4,000

15.24%

20%

5,250

800

15.24%

Total 3,475,100 537,850 15.48% 695,020 106,050 15.26% Note:/ Cluster sampling method w as used here. Cluster w as made on the basis of data available in ''Uo Register' of holding tax w ith a serial boundary from 01-27. Only interval w as given w here data could not be found fully available in the register same.

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 31

Annex 2(viii) Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Holding Tax Total holdings in Ward-9

1724 Sam pling#

2%

No. 34

Pourashava : Cox's Bazar

Holding Number & Name

Sl.

a 1

Nr.

Name

b c 105 Master Minhaz Uddint

Ward

Primary Valuation (BDT)

d 9

e 51,500

Final Valuation (BDT)

f 5,000

Valuation Tax rate Expected * Coverage (%) Tax (BDT) ratio

g h/(f/e)% 9.71% 20%

i 10,300

Tax Imposed* (BDT) in FY2017-18 Reassessment j

Assessed Ratio (%)

1,000

k/(j/i)% 9.71% 16.65%

2

106 Dr. Mahbub Alam

9

1,000,000

166,500

16.65%

20%

200,000

33,300

3

107 Dr. G.M. Mubin Uddin

9

362,000

25,000

6.91%

20%

72,400

5,000

6.91%

4

108 Ahsan Habib

9

105,000

15,000

14.29%

20%

21,000

3,000

14.29%

5

109 Jaheda Begum

9

41,250

5,000

12.12%

20%

8,250

1,000

12.12%

6

110 Joynab Ara Begum

9

41,250

5,000

12.12%

20%

8,250

1,000

12.12%

7

111 Saleha Begum

9

475,000

35,000

7.37%

20%

95,000

7,000

7.37%

8

122 Jahed Md. Kaysar Nobel

9

9,000

1,500

16.67%

20%

1,800

300

16.67%

9

123 Master Abdur Rahman

9

75,000

12,500

16.67%

20%

15,000

2,500

16.67%

10

124 Sahjahan Muntasir

9

27,000

2,500

9.26%

20%

5,400

500

9.26%

11

125 Md. Shahidullah

9

450,000

75,000

16.67%

20%

90,000

15,000

16.67%

12

126 Kamrul Islam Kajol

9

100,000

7,500

7.50%

20%

20,000

1,500

7.50%

13

127 Shamsul Alam Kutubi

9

75,000

10,000

13.33%

20%

15,000

2,000

13.33%

14

128 Kaniz Fatima

9

127,500

21,250

16.67%

20%

25,500

4,250

16.67%

15

129 Rabeya Amin

9

236,000

30,000

12.71%

20%

47,200

6,000

12.71%

16

130 Jarifa Begum

9

450,000

47,500

10.56%

20%

90,000

9,500

10.56%

17

131 Jarifa Begum

9

35,000

3,500

10.00%

20%

7,000

700

10.00%

18

133 Mamunul Karim Mamun

9

120,000

20,000

16.67%

20%

24,000

4,000

16.67%

Remarks

l

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Holding Number & Name

Sl.

Nr.

Name

Ward

Primary Valuation (BDT)

Final Valuation (BDT)

Valuation Tax rate Expected * Coverage (%) Tax (BDT) ratio

Tax Imposed* (BDT) in FY2017-18 Reassessment

Assessed Ratio (%)

19

134 Maumuda Begum

9

52,500

6,000

11.43%

20%

10,500

1,200

11.43%

20

135 Maumuda Begum

9

52,500

15,000

28.57%

20%

10,500

1,200

11.43%

21

136 Adv. Abdur Rahim

9

117,500

15,000

12.77%

20%

23,500

3,000

12.77%

22

137 Ow asil Md. Rayhan Gong

9

177,500

17,500

9.86%

20%

35,500

3,500

9.86%

23

138 Jafor Alam Didar

9

41,250

4,000

9.70%

20%

8,250

800

9.70%

24

139 Najrul Islam

9

22,500

3,750

16.67%

20%

4,500

750

16.67%

25

140 Kamrul Islam

9

33,750

5,500

16.30%

20%

6,750

1,100

16.30%

26

141 Row shan Jahan

9

60,750

5,500

9.05%

20%

12,150

1,100

9.05%

27

148 Kalim Ullah

9

80,000

8,000

10.00%

20%

16,000

1,600

10.00%

28

149 Professor Makbul Ahmed

9

11,250

2,000

17.78%

20%

2,250

400

17.78%

29

150 Arif Manshon

9

672,500

62,500

9.29%

20%

134,500

12,500

9.29%

30

152 Adv. Saurandranath Mojumder Gong 9

45,000

3,500

7.78%

20%

9,000

700

7.78%

31

153 Roshne Ara Begum

9

58,800

10,000

17.01%

20%

11,760

2,000

17.01%

32

154 Abul Kashem

9

70,000

11,000

15.71%

20%

14,000

2,300

16.43%

33

155 Diskusha Begum

9

357,500

35,000

9.79%

20%

71,500

7,000

9.79%

34

156 Rubi Akter

9

37,500

6,250

16.67%

20%

7,500

1,250

16.67%

5,671,300

698,250

12.31%

1,134,260

137,950

12.16%

Total

Remarks

Note:/ Cluster sampling method w as used here. Cluster w as made on the basis of data available in ''Uo Register' of holding tax w ith a serial boundary from 105-156. Only interval w as given w here data could not be found fully available in the register same.

| 32

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 33

Annex 2(ix) Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Holding Tax Total holdings in Ward-10

1034 Sam pling

2%

No. 21

Pourashava : Cox's Bazar

Holding Number & Name

Sl.

a

Nr.

Name

b 1

1 Jakeria Abedin

d 10

2

2 Shahnew az Begum

10

3

7 Eng. Mosharaf Hossen

10

4

8 Sw apon Kumar Paul

10

5

5 Md. Ismail Gong 7 Kamrul Hoda Gong

6

c

Ward

Primary Valuation (BDT)

e 550,000

Final Valuation (BDT)

Valuation Tax rate Expected * Coverage (%) Tax (BDT) ratio

i 110,000

Tax Imposed* (BDT) in FY2017-18 Reassessment

Assessed Ratio (%)

f 90,000

g h/(f/e)% 16.36% 20%

j 18,000

k/(j/i)% 16.36%

70,000

11,500

16.43%

20%

750,000

125,000

16.67%

20%

14,000

2,300

16.43%

150,000

25,000

232,500

20,000

8.60%

20%

46,500

4,000

16.67% 8.60%

10

472,500

85,000

17.99%

20%

94,500

17,000

17.99%

10

50,250

8,375

16.67%

20%

10,050

1,675

16.67%

7

10 Abdullah Shikder

10

11,250

2,250

20.00%

20%

2,250

450

20.00%

8

11 Habibullah Chow dhury

10

235,000

38,500

16.38%

20%

47,000

7,700

16.38%

9

12 Suchorita Barua

10

525,000

87,500

16.67%

20%

105,000

17,500

16.67%

10

13 Subikash Barua

10

15,000

2,500

16.67%

20%

3,000

500

16.67%

11

14 Shah Alam

10

175,000

29,000

16.57%

20%

35,000

5,800

16.57%

12

15 Shah Alam

10

22,500

3,750

16.67%

20%

4,500

750

16.67%

13

16 Abdul Kayum Gong

10

112,500

3,000

2.67%

20%

22,500

600

2.67%

14

17 Nurul Kabir

10

11,250

2,250

20.00%

20%

2,250

450

20.00%

15

18 Nurul Kabir

10

15,000

2,500

16.67%

20%

3,000

500

16.67%

16

21 Jafor Alam

10

15,000

2,500

16.67%

20%

3,000

500

16.67%

17

22 Abu Salam

10

9,000

1,500

16.67%

20%

1,800

300

16.67%

18

23 Abul Kashem

10

9,000

1,500

16.67%

20%

1,800

300

16.67%

19

24 Selim Kader Rasel

10

15,000

3,000

20.00%

20%

3,000

600

20.00%

20

26 Abu Taher

10

420,000

60,000

14.29%

20%

84,000

12,000

14.29%

21

27 Rafiq Uddin

10

182,500

12,500

6.85%

20%

36,500

2,500

6.85%

3,898,250

592,125

15.19%

779,650

118,425

15.19%

Total

Remarks

l

Note:/ Cluster sampling method w as used here. Cluster w as made on the basis of data available in ''Uo Register' of holding tax w ith a serial boundary from 01-27. Only interval w as given w here data could not be found fully available in the register same.

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 34

Annex 2(x) Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Holding Tax Total holdings in Ward-11

1082 Sam pling

2%

No. 22

Pourashava : Cox's Bazar

Holding Number & Name

Sl.

a

Nr.

b

Name

Ward

Primary Valuation (BDT)

Final Valuation (BDT)

Valuation Tax rate Expected * Coverage (%) Tax (BDT) ratio

1

c 4 Naimul Haque Chow dhury

d 11

e 100,000

f 15,000

2

5 Mohammad Aiub

11

880,000

125,000

14.20%

20%

3

8 Advocate Habibur Rahman

11

37,500

5,000

13.33%

20%

4

9 Md. Gias Uddin

11

39,250

2,500

6.37%

5

10 Saidur Rahman

11

28,350

2,750

6

11 Shahidul Alam

11

21,460

2,500

k/(j/i)% 15.00%

176,000

25,000

14.20%

7,500

1,000

13.33%

20%

7,850

500

6.37%

9.70%

20%

5,670

550

9.70%

11.65%

20%

4,292

500

11.65%

12 Amir Hossain

11

39,600

11

70,600

2,750

6.94%

20%

7,920

800

10.10%

11,760

16.66%

20%

14,120

1,960

14 Kabir Ahmed

11

60,480

13.88%

10,080

16.67%

20%

12,096

1,680

10

15 Kahinur Ahmed

11

13.89%

90,000

15,000

16.67%

20%

18,000

2,500

11

16 Kaniza Jahura

13.89%

11

241,020

40,170

16.67%

20%

48,204

6,695

12

13.89%

17 Nabo Jagoron Committee

11

112,500

22,500

20.00%

20%

22,500

4,500

20.00%

13

18 Md. Sarder Uddin Talukder

11

18,750

10,750

57.33%

20%

3,750

750

20.00%

14

19 Professor Jamir Uddin

11

70,000

15,000

21.43%

20%

14,000

1,800

12.86%

15

21 Md. Jamal Gong

11

57,000

11,400

20.00%

20%

11,400

1,900

16.67%

16

22 Md. Salam

11

55,000

9,000

16.36%

20%

11,000

1,500

13.64%

17

23 Ojit Sharma Gong

11

217,400

10,000

4.60%

20%

43,480

2,000

4.60%

18

24 Onima Shammi

11

36,540

7,500

20.53%

20%

7,308

1,250

17.10%

19

26 Nurul Amin Chow dhury

11

25,514

5,100

19.99%

20%

5,103

850

16.66%

20

27 Sirajul Islam

11

320,760

64,200

20.01%

20%

64,152

10,700

16.68%

21

28 Khadiza Khanam

11

29,250

5,850

20.00%

20%

5,850

975

16.67%

22

29 Md. Shafiqur Rahman Chow dhury

11

1,340,800

167,500

12.49%

20%

268,160

33,500

12.49%

8 9

13(1) Morsheda Begum

i 20,000

j

Assessed Ratio (%)

3,000

7

g h/(f/e)% 15.00% 20%

Tax Imposed* (BDT) in FY2017-18 Reassessment

Remarks

l

Total 3,891,774 561,310 14.42% 778,355 103,910 13.35% Note:/ Cluster sampling method w as used here. Cluster w as made on the basis of data available in ''Uo Register' of holding tax w ith a serial boundary from 04-29. Only interval w as given w here data could not be found fully available in the register same.

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 35

Annex 2(xi) Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Holding Tax Total holdings in Ward-12

1965 Sam pling#

2%

No. 39

Pourashava : Cox's Bazar

Holding Number & Name

Sl.

a

Nr.

Name

b

Ward

Primary Valuation (BDT)

Final Valuation (BDT)

c

1

2 Hotel Kollol

d 12

e 70,275,000

f 900,000

2

5 Sea World Hotel

12

227,500,000

3

6 Sea Gerl Hotel

12

380,250,000

7 Prasad Paradise Hotel

4

Valuation Tax rate Expected * Coverage (%) Tax (BDT) ratio

Tax Imposed* (BDT) in FY2017-18 Reassessment

Assessed Ratio (%)

g h/(f/e)% 1.28% 20%

i 14,055,000

j 180,000

k/(j/i)% 1.28%

1,222,500

0.54%

20%

45,500,000

244,500

0.54%

2,100,000

0.55%

20%

76,050,000

420,000

0.55%

12

90,000,000

1,500,000

1.67%

20%

18,000,000

300,000

1.67%

5

10 The Cox Today

12

327,093,750

2,500,000

0.76%

20%

65,418,750

500,000

0.76%

6

11 Long Beach Hotel

12

139,500,000

2,100,000

1.51%

20%

27,900,000

420,000

1.51%

7

82 Taher Bhaban Guest House

12

6,600,000

108,500

1.64%

20%

1,320,000

21,700

1.64%

8

83 Daimond Palese Guest House

12

7,220,000

210,000

2.91%

20%

1,444,000

42,000

2.91%

9

84 Kurinthian House

80,000

17.38%

20%

92,050

16,000

17.38%

85 Albatros Resource

12 12

460,250

10

15,170,000

363,500

2.40%

20%

3,034,000

72,700

2.40%

11

86 Sea Sun Resort

12

12,900,000

442,500

3.43%

20%

2,580,000

88,500

3.43%

12

87 Galaxi Resort

12

7,370,000

250,000

3.39%

20%

1,474,000

50,000

3.39%

13

88 Sea Park Hotel

12

22,070,000

666,000

3.02%

20%

4,414,000

133,200

3.02%

14

89 Mohammadia Guest House

12

17,850,300

457,000

2.56%

20%

3,570,060

91,500

2.56%

15

93 Sarmom Guest House

12

4,650,000

175,000

3.76%

20%

930,000

35,000

3.76%

16

94 Hotel Cox In

12

8,740,000

400,000

4.58%

20%

1,748,000

80,000

4.58%

17

96 Zia Guest In

12

4,460,000

183,500

4.11%

20%

892,000

36,700

4.11%

18

97 Hotel Lemich Resort

12

10,780,000

342,500

3.18%

20%

2,156,000

68,500

3.18%

19

98 Zia Guest House

12

4,250,000

165,000

3.88%

20%

850,000

33,000

3.88%

12

1,000,000

100,000

10.00%

20%

200,000

20,000

10.00%

20

100 Sw eet Home Resort

Remarks

l

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Holding Number & Name

Sl.

a

Nr.

Name

b

c

Ward

Primary Valuation (BDT)

Final Valuation (BDT)

d

e

f

Valuation Tax rate Expected * Coverage (%) Tax (BDT) ratio

g

h/(f/e)%

i

Tax Imposed* (BDT) in FY2017-18 Reassessment

Assessed Ratio (%)

Remarks

j

k/(j/i)%

l

21

107 Haque Guest In

12

3,548,040

107,500

3.03%

20%

709,608

21,500

22

108 Quality Home

12

4,730,000

122,500

2.59%

20%

946,000

24,500

2.59%

23

125 Kalo Manik House

12

640,000

100,000

15.63%

20%

128,000

20,000

15.63%

24

144 Shamim Guest House Hotel

12

8,020,000

111,500

1.39%

20%

1,604,000

22,300

1.39%

25

146 Merin Plaza Hotel

12

6,100,000

160,000

2.62%

20%

1,220,000

2.62%

158 Alam Guest House

12

32,000 42,000

26

3.03%

210,000 250,000

20%

2,204,000

12

11,020,000 5,640,000

1.91%

27 158(1) Royal Beach Resort

4.43%

20%

50,000

4.43%

28 164(1) Hotel Beach View

12

12,970,000

180,000

1.39%

20%

1,128,000 2,594,000

36,000

1.39%

29

169 Bay View Guest House

12

9,840,000

162,500

1.65%

20%

1,968,000

32,500

1.65%

30

170 Hotel Needs Bayw atch

12

13,500,000

400,000

2.96%

20%

2,700,000

80,000

2.96%

31

172 Hotel Beach Way

12

8,870,000

350,000

3.95%

20%

1,774,000

70,000

3.95%

32 172(1) Hotel WeD Tebes 33 173 Dainasik SH See Parl

12

21,650,000

480,000

2.22%

20%

4,330,000

96,000

2.22%

12

5,160,000

250,000

4.84%

20%

1,032,000

50,000

4.84%

34 173(1) Best Weaster Plus

12

70,800,000

1,500,000

2.12%

20%

14,160,000

300,000

2.12%

35 172(3) Gias Uddin Residence

12

250,000

25,000

10.00%

20%

50,000

5,000

10.00%

36

177 Sea Crow n Hotel

12

82,500,000

840,000

1.02%

20%

16,500,000

168,000

1.02%

179 Amin International Hotel

12

5,090,000

120,000

2.36%

20%

1,018,000

24,000

2.36%

38 179(1) Sea Uttara Hotel

12

17,800,000

200,000

1.12%

20%

3,560,000

40,000

1.12%

39

12

9,320,000

250,000

2.68%

20%

1,864,000

50,000

2.68%

37

189 Hotel Laudge

| 36

1.91%

Total 420,968,590 9,762,500 2.32% 84,193,718 1,952,600 2.32% Note:/ Cluster sampling method w as used here. Cluster w as made on the basis of data available in ''Uo Register' of holding tax w ith a serial boundary from 02-189. Only interval w as given w here data could not be found fully available in the register same.

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 37

Annex 3 Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Trade Licence Pourashava :

Wa rd No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

Ke y l oca ti on/bus i ne s s cove re d

Village/semi-urban areas Village/semi-urban areas, Dry f ish business areas Bor (main) bazar business area Barmiz bazar business areas Village/semi-urban areas, Dry f ish business areas Bus terminal/ grossary shop busness areas Hill and residential areas Hill and residential areas New market & residential areas City business, and residential areas Residential & commercial areas Tourist / sea beach areas

Pe rce nt cove ra ge i n FY 2017-18 Source: Cox's Bazar Pourashava

Cox's Bazar

Numbe r Numbe r of Tota l of Tota l l i ce nce s l i ce nce s Numbe r of upda te d/ upda te d/ Tota l cove ra ge cove ra ge Pe rce nt Pe rce nt Pe rce nt re gi s te re d unde r unde r l i ce nce s re nua l re nua l a nd ne w a nd ne w i n FY 2016i n FY 201717 18

876 6.64% 1080 8.18% 2844 21.55% 722 5.47% 1076 8.15% 595 4.51% 610 4.62% 848 6.42% 363 2.75% 1284 9.73% 719 5.45% 2182 16.53% 13199 100.00%

287 6.45% 341 7.66% 1141 25.62% 254 5.70% 317 7.12% 177 3.97% 205 4.60% 232 5.21% 104 2.34% 449 10.08% 259 5.82% 687 15.43% 4453 100.00%

219 3320 1400 332 454 252 250 266 105 543 311 1166 8618 65.29%

2.54% 38.52% 16.25% 3.85% 5.27% 2.92% 2.90% 3.09% 1.22% 6.30% 3.61% 13.53% 100.00%

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 38

Annex 3(i) Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Trade Licence Pourashava :

Busi ness ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Types of Business

Industry factory and Commercial firms- up to 5 lakhs Industry factory and Commercial firms- 5-10 lakhs Industry factory and Commercial firms- 10-25 lakhs Industry factory and Commercial firms- 25-50 lakhs Industry factory and Commercial firms- 50 lacks --01 crore Industry factory and Commercial firms- 01-05 crore Industry factory and Commercial firms- 05-10 crore Industry factory and Commercial firms- less than 50 crore Industry factory and Commercial firms- 50 crore and above Small and cottage industry: 50 thousands to 1 lakh Small and cottage industry: 2-3 lakhs Small and cottage industry: above 3 lakhs Fishery, poultry, livestock , milk , agriculture, etc. farms: up to 1 lakh Fishery, poultry, livestock , milk , agriculture, etc. farms: up to 3 lakh Fishery, poultry, livestock , milk , agriculture, etc. farms: 3-10 lakhs Fishery, poultry, livestock , milk , agriculture, etc. farms: 10-25 lakhs Fishery, poultry, livestock , milk , agriculture, etc. farms: 25-50 lakhs Fishery, poultry, livestock , milk , agriculture, etc. farms: above 50 lakhs Godow n, except limited company: up to 1 lakh Godow n, except limited company: 1-5 lakh Godow n, except limited company: 5-10 lakh Godow n, except limited company: above 10 lakh Cold Storage, except limited company : up to 25 lakhs Cold Storage, except limited company : 25 lakhs to 01 Crore Cold Storage, except limited company : above 01 Crore

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total) 49 15 23 13 2 3 5 1 1 2 37 16 3 16 200 55 12 1 3 24 60 1 4 10 31

0.37% 0.11% 0.17% 0.10% 0.02% 0.02% 0.04% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.28% 0.12% 0.02% 0.12% 1.52% 0.42% 0.09% 0.01% 0.02% 0.18% 0.45% 0.01% 0.03% 0.08% 0.23%

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

Cox's Bazar

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 10,000 15,000 25,000 50,000 250 500 500 200 400 600 1,000

2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 10,000 15,000 25,000 50,000 250 500 500 200 400 600 1,000

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

4,000 800 1,500 3,000 5,000 5,000 8,000 15,000

4,000 800 1,500 3,000 5,000 5,000 8,000 15,000

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Remarks

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Types of Business

Brick field, Ceramic factory etc. : up to 20 lakh Brick field, Ceramic factory etc. : 21-40 lakh Brick field, Ceramic factory etc. : above 40 lakh Rice, w heat, maize, mustard breaking factory: up to 50 thousands Rice, w heat, maize, mustard breaking factory: up to 2 lakhs Rice, w heat, maize, mustard breaking factory: 2-5 lakhs Rice, w heat, maize, mustard breaking factory: above 10 lakhs Rice, w heat, maize, mustard breaking factory: 5-10 lakhs Saw Mill, Wood log, diesel etc. other mills : up to 1 lakh Saw Mill, Wood log, diesel etc. other mills : 1-3 lakh Saw Mill, Wood log, diesel etc. other mills : 3-5 lakh Saw Mill, Wood log, disel etc. other mills : 5-10 lakh Saw Mill, Wood log, disel etc. other mills : above 10 lakh Softw are, hardw are, electronics producer/installation: up to 1 lakh Softw are, hardw are, electronics producer/installation: 1-3 lakh Softw are, hardw are, electronics producer/installation: 3-5 lakh Softw are, hardw are, electronics producer/installation: 5-10 lakh Softw are, hardw are, electronics producer/installation: 10-25 lakh Softw are, hardw are, electronics producer/installation: above 25 lakh Schedule Bank Insurance Company Loan/ leasing Company Money Exchange Share purchaser and Seller ATM Booth N.G.O (foreign supported) N.G.O (operated local finances) N.G.O (non-microfinance) Money lender Contractor-Special Class

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total) 3 18 9 48 8 5 3 3 12 1 3 17 68 35 2 7 22 1 16 43 14 9 1 5 16 5 10 54 41 17

0.02% 0.14% 0.07% 0.36% 0.06% 0.04% 0.02% 0.02% 0.09% 0.01% 0.02% 0.13% 0.52% 0.27% 0.02% 0.05% 0.17% 0.01% 0.12% 0.33% 0.11% 0.07% 0.01% 0.04% 0.12% 0.04% 0.08% 0.41% 0.31% 0.13%

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

7,500 12,000 20,000 400 500 1,000 1,500

7,500 12,000 20,000 400 500 1,000 1,500

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

1,000

1,000

100%

3,000 4,000

3,000 4,000

100% 100%

3,000 5,000 8,000 4,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 5,000 2,000 750

3,000 5,000 8,000 4,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 5,000 2,000 750

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

4,000

4,000

100%

Remarks

| 39

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Types of Business

Contractor-1st Class Contractor-2nd Class Contractor-3rd Class Suppliers Lease holders Non-Govt. University Non-Govt. Engineering and Technical College Non-Govt.Medical College Non-Govt. College Non-Govt.Higher Secondary School Non-Govt. Secondary School Non-Govt. Primary School Kinder Garden School-Bangla Medium Kinder Garden School-English Medium Training Centre-General/Computer Training Centre-Vocational Coaching Center/Tutorial Non-Govt. Hospital, Clinic, Nursing home-1 beds -20 beds Non-Govt. Hospital, Clinic, Nursing home-21 beds -30 beds Non-Govt. Hospital, Clinic, Nursing home-31 beds -50 beds Non-Govt. Hospital, Clinic, Nursing home- above 50 beds Pathological or Diagnostic Centre (big) Pathological or Diagnostic Centre (medium) Pathological or Diagnostic Centre (small) Indenting & Commission Agent Clearing & Forw arding Agent Travelling Agent Hajj Agency Recruiting Agent Import and Export Agent

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total) 296 197 306 556 5 6 19 21 5 7 1 165 280 50 52 11 6 11 9 15 1 7 2 17 61 18 137 10 25 116

2.24% 1.49% 2.32% 4.21% 0.04% 0.05% 0.14% 0.16% 0.04% 0.05% 0.01% 1.25% 2.12% 0.38% 0.39% 0.08% 0.05% 0.08% 0.07% 0.11% 0.01% 0.05% 0.02% 0.13% 0.46% 0.14% 1.04% 0.08% 0.19% 0.88%

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

2,000 1,500 1,000 750 750 7,500 6,000 6,000 2,000 1,200 700 500 1,000 1,000 500 500 1,000 7,500 10,000 15,000 25,000 15,000

2,000 1,500 1,000 750 750 7,500 6,000 6,000 2,000 1,200 700 500 1,000 1,000 500 500 1,000 7,500 10,000 15,000 25,000 15,000

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,000 2,500 1,500

5,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,000 2,500 1,500

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Remarks

| 40

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115

Types of Business

VISA Agent

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total)

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

3

0.02%

65.29%

1,500

1,500

100%

25 17 6 14 9 4 15 59 61 39 11 7 2 12 128 6 5 1

0.19% 0.13% 0.05% 0.11% 0.07% 0.03% 0.11% 0.45% 0.46% 0.30% 0.08% 0.05% 0.02% 0.09% 0.97% 0.05% 0.04% 0.01%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

500 8,000 10,000 15,000

500 8,000 10,000 15,000

100% 100% 100% 100%

1,000 2,000 4,000 7,500

1,000 2,000 4,000 7,500

100% 100% 100% 100%

25,000

25,000

100%

2,500 1,500 2,500 1,000

2,500 1,500 2,500 1,000

100% 100% 100% 100%

Depot (arotdary) business (paddy, rice, flour, sugar, molasses, oil etc.)

Depot (arotdary) business (onion, garlic, spices, egg, milk etc.)

60 8

0.45% 0.06%

65.29% 65.29%

1,500 1,000

1,500 1,000

100% 100%

Depot (arotdary) business (bricks, sand, cement, rod etc.)

Depot (arotdary) business (fruits/vegetables) Depot (arotdary) business (shrimp fish) Depot (arotdary) business (other fish) Depot (arotdary) business (other goods) Food production & beverage seller-Chinese restaurant

2 13 5 22 16 15

0.02% 0.10% 0.04% 0.17% 0.12% 0.11%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

2,500 500 2,500 2,000 1,500 6,000

2,500 500 2,500 2,000 1,500 6,000

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Stamp Vendor Air Conditional Residential Hotel: up to 10 rooms Air Conditional Residential Hotel: 11-30 rooms Air Conditional Residential Hotel: 31-50 rooms Air Conditional Residential Hotel: 51-100 rooms Air Conditional Residential Hotel: above 100 rooms Non-Air Conditional Residential Hotel: up to 10 rooms Non-Air Conditional Residential Hotel: 11-30 rooms Non-Air Conditional Residential Hotel: 31-50 rooms Non-Air Conditional Residential Hotel: 51-100 rooms Non-Air Conditional Residential Hotel: above 100 rooms Air Conditional Residential Hotel: Centrally Air Conditional Residential Hotel-(big) Centrally Air Conditional Residential Hotel-(small) Motel, Rest House, or Guest House, Hall-Non-air conditional Non-Govt. Students Hostel: 1-50 seats Non-Govt. Students Hostel: above 51 seats Cinema Hall (general)

Remarks

| 41

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145

Types of Business

Food production & beverage seller-Chinese restaurant (Air conditional) General Restaurant Food hotel (big) General Restaurant /Food hotel (medium) General Restaurant /Food hotel (small) Mobile or Floating resturant Coffee house/fast food/ juice bar-Air conditional Coffee house/fast food/ juice bar-General Wine bar or distributor Tea/Ice-cream/ betel leaf/Cigarate shops Sw eet shop (big) Sw eet shop (small) Confectionary (big) Confectionary (small) Beauty Parlor, Hair dressing saloon (air conditional) Beauty Parlor, Hair dressing saloon (general) Hair dressing saloon-general (air condone) Hair dressing saloon-general (big) Hair dressing saloon-general (small) Automatic machine laundry General laundry (big) General laundry (small) Laundry show room Architecture & Engineering firms Professional firms-Consultancy firms Professional firms-solicitor firms Professional firms-Event management firms Professional firms- Out sourcing firms Professional firms- Security Service firms Professional firms- Advertising firms Professional firms- Other firms

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total) 76 163 91 18 3 42 19 5 60 9 2 46 208 31 23 21 38 7 8 8 13 4 41 19 7 11 16 2 3 6

0.58% 1.23% 0.69% 0.14% 0.02% 0.32% 0.14% 0.04% 0.45% 0.07% 0.02% 0.35% 1.58% 0.23% 0.17% 0.16% 0.29% 0.05% 0.06% 0.06% 0.10% 0.03% 0.31% 0.14% 0.05% 0.08% 0.12% 0.02% 0.02% 0.05%

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis) 2,000 1,000 750 500 300 2,000 500 20,000 300 1,000 500 1,000 500 2,000 10,000 750 500 300 2,000 750 300 500 3,500 2,500 1,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

2,000 1,000 750 500 300 2,000 500 20,000 300 1,000 500 1,000 500 2,000 10,000 750 500 300 2,000 750 300 500 3,500 2,500 1,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

Assessed ratio (%)

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Remarks

| 42

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

Types of Business

Self-employed professionals ( those incomes are taxable ) Self-employed professionals ( those incomes are non-taxable )

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total)

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

10 4

0.08% 0.03%

65.29% 65.29%

1,000 600

1,000 600

100% 100%

Vehicles w ith three or tw o w heels (non-rental used)

9

0.07%

65.29%

300

300

100%

CNG-Auto Rickshaw (non-rental used)

1

0.01%

65.29%

500

500

100%

Truck, Covered-Van, Cargo-Van (non-rental used) Ow ner or Business of Car, Micro-bus (non-rental used) Ow ner or Business of Launch, Steamer, Cargo (non-rental used) Ow ner or Business of Van, Rickshaw (non-rental used)

13 97 13 27

0.10% 0.73% 0.10% 0.20%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

1,200 600 2,500 100

1,200 600 2,500 100

100% 100% 100% 100%

Vehicles w ith three or tw o w heels (rental used) Ow ner or Business of Tempo, Hauler (rental used) CNG-Auto Rickshaw (rental used) Ow ner or Business of Bus, mini-bus (rental used) Ow ner of Business of Truck, Covered-Van, Cargo-Van (rental used) Ow ner of Business of Car, Micro-bus (rental used) Motorized Boat/Toller

1 2 2 26 2 3 1

0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.20% 0.02% 0.02% 0.01%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

500 2,000 1,500 2,500 3,000 1,000 400

500 2,000 1,500 2,500 3,000 1,000 400

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3

0.02%

65.29%

2,000

2,000

100%

1 4 3 5 14

0.01% 0.03% 0.02% 0.04% 0.11%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

1,000 1,500 3,000

1,000 1,500 3,000

100% 100% 100%

2,000

2,000

100%

Motorized Cargo boat (30 horse pow ered) Cargo ( 500 Kg to 1000 Kg w eight capacity) Cargo ( 1000 Kg to 5000 Kg w eight capacity) Cargo ( above 5000 Kg w eight capacity) Spread boat Sigarates (different brands): Whole seller, distributor, agency

Remarks

| 43

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205

Types of Business

Furniture (different brands): Whole seller, distributor, agency Construction materials (different brands): Whole seller, agency (rod, cement) Food & beverage (different brands): w hole seller, agency Transportations (different brands) Wholesalers, crockery agencies of different brands Wholesalers, agencies of electric goods of different brands Wholesalers, agencies of dress-garments of different brands Wholesalers, agencies of insects and chemical products of different brands Wholesalers, agencies of medicines, drugs, treatments items of different brands Wholesalers, agencies of shoes of different brands Printing machine w ith automation Printing machine w ithout automation Digital printing shop Computer compose & printing Banner, festoon, art & scanning printing Binding factory Photostat shop shop Allopathic pharmacy ( big) Alopathic farmacy ( small) Old Net and rope seller Homio pharmacy (big) Homio pharmacy (medium) retail seller Homio pharmacy (small) Pharmacy (drug) (big) retail seller

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total)

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

14 17 17 8 5 71 45 4 14 42 11 21 9 90 10 19 264 222 590 206 322 36 16 12

0.11% 0.13% 0.13% 0.06% 0.04% 0.54% 0.34% 0.03% 0.11% 0.32% 0.08% 0.16% 0.07% 0.68% 0.08% 0.14% 2.00% 1.68% 4.47% 1.56% 2.44% 0.27% 0.12% 0.09%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

2,000 2,000 1,000 3,000 1,500 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 1,800 500 1,200 500 400 300 300 1,500 1,000

2,000 2,000 1,000 3,000 1,500 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 1,800 500 1,200 500 400 300 300 1,500 1,000

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

500

500

100%

300 400

300 400

100% 100%

Rectified sprit, medicine and chemical items of foods

10

0.08%

65.29%

4,000

4,000

100%

Scientific store retail seller (medium) Scientific store retail seller (small) Surgical & Clinical items shop (big)

2 6 31

0.02% 0.05% 0.23%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

1,500 2,000

1,500 2,000

100% 100%

Remarks

| 44

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235

Types of Business

Surgical & Clinical items shop (medium) Surgical & Clinical items shop (small) TV, Freeze, other electrical goods shop (big) TV, Freeze, other electrical goods shop (medium) TV, Freeze, other electrical goods shop (small) Retail seller of Electrical goods (big) Retail seller of Electrical goods (medium) Retail seller of Electrical goods (small) Sales of phone and computer (big) Sales of phone and computer (small) Retail seller of S. Road and Cement (big) Retail seller of S. Road and Cement (medium) Retail seller of S. Road and Cement (small) Tin, Grill bar, Steel pipe shops (big) Tin, Grill , Steel pipe shops (medium) Tin, Grill , Steel pipe shops (small) Sanitary w are shop -retail seller (big) Sanitary w are shop -retail seller (medium) Sanitary w are shop -retail seller (small) Tiles shop-retail seller (big) Tiles shop-retail seller (medium) Tiles shop-retail seller (small) Hardw are shop-retail seller (big) Hardw are shop-retail seller (small) Cherry Wood shop (big) Cherry Wood shop (medium) Cherry Wood shop (small) Hardboard, partex, Formica shop -retail seller (big) Thai Aluminum,& glass shop -retail seller (big)

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total)

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average

12 23 3 5 11 46 50 16 76 77 17 16 39 4 28 10 8 18 5 32 35 8 57 16 21 4 4 1

0.09% 0.17% 0.02% 0.04% 0.08% 0.35% 0.38% 0.12% 0.58% 0.58% 0.13% 0.12% 0.30% 0.03% 0.21% 0.08% 0.06% 0.14% 0.04% 0.24% 0.27% 0.06% 0.43% 0.12% 0.16% 0.03% 0.03% 0.01%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

2

0.02%

65.29%

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

1,500 2,000 1,500 750 1,000 750 500 1,000 750 3,000

1,500 2,000 1,500 750 1,000 750 500 1,000 750 3,000

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

1,500 2,500

1,500 2,500

100% 100%

1,500 2,500

1,500 2,500

100% 100%

1,500 2,500

1,500 2,500

100% 100%

1,500 2,000 1,500 1,500

1,500 2,000 1,500 1,500

100% 100% 100% 100%

750 750

750 750

100% 100%

2,500

2,500

100%

Remarks

| 45

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265

Types of Business

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total)

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

Thai Aluminum,& glass shop -retail seller (medium)

12

0.09%

65.29%

Bricks, sand, stones-retail seller (big) Bricks, sand, stones-retail seller (small) Bamboo shop -retail (big)

28 9 5

0.21% 0.07% 0.04%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

1,500 1,000 1,000

1,500 1,000 1,000

100% 100% 100%

1

0.01%

65.29%

500

500

100%

1 5 19 1 2

0.01% 0.04% 0.14% 0.01% 0.02%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

10,000 3,000 1,500 5,000 2,500

10,000 3,000 1,500 5,000 2,500

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Private Theme Park Resort - Zoo etc. (big)

1

0.01%

65.29%

5,000

5,000

100%

Gymnasium/Exercise center (big) Gymnasium/Exercise center (small)

4 1

0.03% 0.01%

65.29% 65.29%

700 400

700 400

100% 100%

Cyber Cafe (big- above 10 computers) Cyber Cafe (small- up to 10 computers)

1 3

0.01% 0.02%

65.29% 65.29%

1,500 800

1,500 800

100% 100%

1 10 36 9

0.01% 0.08% 0.27% 0.07%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

1,000 2,500 1,500 2,000

1,000 2,500 1,500 2,000

100% 100% 100% 100%

Chatai, hogla pati shop (big)

Cable TV Netw ork channel Internet service provider Cable TV/ Internet/ Generator connection -local Private Community Centre-Air conditional Private Community Centre-General

Marriage Media Steel & Aluminum Furniture Retail shop w ith factory Steel & Aluminum Furniture Retail shop w ithout factory Wooden Furniture shop w ith factory(big)

Remarks

| 46

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295

Types of Business

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total)

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

Wooden Furniture shop w ith factory(small) Wooden Furniture shop w ithout factory(big) Wooden Furniture shop w ithout factory(small)

5 2 2

0.04% 0.02% 0.02%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

1,500 1,000 750

1,500 1,000 750

100% 100% 100%

Bamboo, rattan made Furniture shop w ith factory (small) Bamboo, rattan made Furniture shop w ithout factory (big)

2 5

0.02% 0.04%

65.29% 65.29%

1,000 750

1,000 750

100% 100%

Plastic Furniture shop w ith factory (big) Plastic Furniture shop w ith factory (small) Plastic Furniture shop w ithout factory (big)

3 10 2

0.02% 0.08% 0.02%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

1,500 1,000

1,500 1,000

100% 100%

Matrix, foam, Raxin shop (big) Matrix, foam, Raxin shop (small) Curtain, Baoding store (big) Curtain, Baoding store (small) Carpet shop (big)

4 11 1 2 2

0.03% 0.08% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

1,000

1,000

100%

750 500 2,000

750 500 2,000

100% 100% 100%

Motor parts shop retail (big) Motor parts shop retail (small) By-Cycle, Rickshaw part shop retail (big)

54 1 7

0.41% 0.01% 0.05%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

1,500

1,500

100%

750

750

100%

Electronic, mobile parts shop retail (big) Electronic, mobile parts shop retail (small)

6 12

0.05% 0.09%

65.29% 65.29%

Machinery parts shop retail (big) Machinery parts shop retail (small) Crockery shop (glass , ceramics) retail (big) Crockery shop (glass , ceramics) retail (small) Crockery shop (melamine, plastic) retail (big)

17 3 2 2 25

0.13% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.19%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

1,500 1,000 1,500

1,500 1,000 1,500

100% 100% 100%

Remarks

| 47

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325

Types of Business

Crockery shop (melamine, plastic) retail (small) Crockery shop (aluminum, steel) retail (big)

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total)

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

1 1

0.01% 0.01%

65.29% 65.29%

1,000 1,500

1,000 1,500

100% 100%

1 31

0.01% 0.23%

65.29% 65.29%

750

750

100%

Wheat , maize, flour seller (w holesaler)

5

0.04%

65.29%

750

750

100%

Pulse, chickpea seller (w holesaler)

1

0.01%

65.29%

750

750

100%

16 1 1 13 3

0.12% 0.01% 0.01% 0.10% 0.02%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

750 300 300 400 200

750 300 300 400 200

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

27 13 5 157 1

0.20% 0.10% 0.04% 1.19% 0.01%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

500 400 300 500 300

500 400 300 500 300

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

52 1

0.39% 0.01%

65.29% 65.29%

100 100

100 100

100% 100%

Utensil retail seller Food grains, fish , meat and agri-products seller (w hole seller)

Fruit seller (w holesaler) Fruit seller (retail) Bran/husk business Vegetable seller -(w holesaler) Vegetable seller -(w holesaler)

Meat seller (beef, buffalo, sheep) Meat seller (duck , hen) Egg seller Fish seller (w hole seller) Fish seller (retail seller)

Betel leaf, areca catechu (supary) shop coconut seller

Remarks

| 48

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355

Types of Business

Tea leaf seller-retailer Hair purchaser and seller

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total)

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

1 8

0.01% 0.06%

65.29% 65.29%

500 250

500 250

100% 100%

6 193 63 4 2 1 2 5 1

0.05% 1.46% 0.48% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.02% 0.04% 0.01%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

2,500 750 500 500 300 1,000 750 1,000 750

2,500 750 500 500 300 1,000 750 1,000 750

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Ware net making factory (big)

1

0.01%

65.29%

1,000

1,000

100%

Tools making / installation factory (medium) Tools making / installation factory (small) Aquarium making Ice Cream factory (big)

6 1 2 6

0.05% 0.01% 0.02% 0.05%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

2,000 1,500 500 750

2,000 1,500 500 750

100% 100% 100% 100%

Ice /borof factory (big) Ice /borof factory (small)

26 1

0.20% 0.01%

65.29% 65.29%

1,000

1,000

100%

Parched rice mill (small) Blacksmith, potter

1 8

0.01% 0.06%

65.29% 65.29%

750 200

750 200

100% 100%

Engineering, w orkshop w ith auto lath Engineering, w orkshop w ithout auto lath Welding w orkshop Rickshaw and Van making factory (big) Rickshaw and Van making factory (small) Electric goods making factory (big) Electric goods making factory (small) Breakery factory (big) Breakery factory (small)

Remarks

| 49

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415

Types of Business

Photo Studio w ith lab Photo Studio (big) w ithout lab

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total)

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

13 14

0.10% 0.11%

65.29% 65.29%

1,000 500

1,000 500

100% 100%

4 4 5 11 25 1 151 10 9 2

0.03% 0.03% 0.04% 0.08% 0.19% 0.01% 1.14% 0.08% 0.07% 0.02%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

500 500 1,000 3,000 1,000 500 750 500 600 500

500 500 1,000 3,000 1,000 500 750 500 600 500

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Fire w ood shop (big) Fire w ood shop (small) Solar panel (w ithout agency) -big Solar panel (small) Sports item shop (big)

3 3 6 2 4

0.02% 0.02% 0.05% 0.02% 0.03%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

500

500

100%

500

500

100%

800

800

100%

Troy shop (big) Troy shop (small) Greetings cards / gift items shop (big)

4 1 1

0.03% 0.01% 0.01%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

500

500

100%

500

500

100%

10

0.08%

65.29%

750

750

100%

Video , audio & editing Mike shop Video game shop Petrol pump/CNG filling station Petrol, Kerosene, diesel retail seller (big) Petrol, Kerosene, diesel retail seller (small) LPG Gas seller (big) LPG Gas seller (small) Battary shop (big) w ithout agency Battary shop (small)

Bag/ suitcase sales shop (big)

Remarks

| 50

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445

Types of Business

Flow er sales shop (big) Flow er sales shop (small)

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total)

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

10 1

0.08% 0.01%

65.29% 65.29%

300

300

100%

Chandelier, show piece shop (small)

2

0.02%

65.29%

1,000

1,000

100%

Motor Cycle, auto Rickshaw , scouter, tractor light vehicles (big) Motor Cycle, auto Rickshaw , scouter, tractor light vehicles (small) By-Cycle, Rickshaw , Van, pushcart , not-motorized vehicles (big) By-Cycle, Rickshaw , Van, pushcart , not-motorized vehicles (small) Parts shop motorized vehicle (big) Parts shop motorized vehicle (small)

4 4 2 2 1 3

0.03% 0.03% 0.02% 0.02% 0.01% 0.02%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

5,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,500

5,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,500

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3 10 1 2 5 8 1 10 38 2

0.02% 0.08% 0.01% 0.02% 0.04% 0.06% 0.01% 0.08% 0.29% 0.02%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

2,500

2,500

100%

2,000 2,000

2,000 2,000

100% 100%

750

750

100%

2,000

2,000

100%

750

750

100%

2

0.02%

65.29%

500

500

100%

Vehicle battery & tier seller (big) Vehicle battery & tier seller (medium) Vehicle battery & tier seller (small) Fertilizer, Insecticide, medicine shop w ith agency (big) Fertilizer, Insecticide, medicine shop w ith agency (small) Fertilizer, Insecticide, medicine shop w ithout agency (big) Fertilizer, Insecticide, medicine shop w ithout agency (small) Animal, birds ,fish feed sale shops w ith agency (big) Animal, birds ,fish feed sale shops w ith agency (small) Animal, birds ,fish feed sale shops w ithout agency (big)

Agri-seeds production and sales (big)

Remarks

| 51

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475

Types of Business

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total)

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

Electronic goods repairing shop (big) Electronic goods repairing shop (small) Auto-mobile repairing factory (big) Auto-mobile repairing factory (small)

28 8 2 1

0.21% 0.06% 0.02% 0.01%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

750

750

100%

1,000 750

1,000 750

100% 100%

Vehicle tire repairing & air pump shops Jew elry repairing shop

11 26

0.08% 0.20%

65.29% 65.29%

750 750

750 750

100% 100%

Computer & mobile phone repairing shop (big) Computer & mobile phone repairing shop (small)

5 4

0.04% 0.03%

65.29% 65.29%

750

750

100%

Spray, painting shop (big)

1

0.01%

65.29%

750

750

100%

39 14 8 105

0.30% 0.11% 0.06% 0.80%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

500

500

100%

2,000 750

2,000 750

100% 100%

Transport parcel service (big) Transport parcel service (small)

1 4

0.01% 0.03%

65.29% 65.29%

5,000 2,000

5,000 2,000

100% 100%

Rent-a-Car shop Generator renting shop Centering materials renting shop

38 3 1

0.29% 0.02% 0.01%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

1,000 500

1,000 500

100% 100%

Decoration materials renting shop (big) Decoration materials renting shop (small)

2 18

0.02% 0.14%

65.29% 65.29%

1,000 750

1,000 750

100% 100%

Phone call & fax shop Phone call & easy/flexi load shop Mobile money transfer (w ith agency) Mobile money transfer (small)

Remarks

| 52

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505

Types of Business

Electronic & Electronics goods renting shop (big) Electronic & Electronics goods renting shop (small) Bus Counter

Garments accessories (small) Nursery (big) Waste & olden materials business (big) Waste & olden materials business (small)

Jute-mate, bag, sack , carton seller chopper, knife, boti, axe etc. seller Books seller (big) Books seller (small) Stationery shop (big) Stationery shop (medium) Stationery shop (small) Grocery shop (big) Grocery shop (medium) Grocery shop (small) Packing and marketing business (medium) Packing and marketing business (small)

Renu / Hatchery supplier (big)

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total)

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

10 14 71

0.08% 0.11% 0.54%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

1,000

1,000

100%

750

750

100%

2 3

0.02% 0.02%

65.29% 65.29%

2,000 500

2,000 500

100% 100%

55 17

0.42% 0.13%

65.29% 65.29%

1,000 400

1,000 400

100% 100%

1 1 2 2 5 60 37 41 167 485

0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.04% 0.45% 0.28% 0.31% 1.27% 3.67%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

300 300 750 500 2,000 1,500 750 1,200 750 500

300 300 750 500 2,000 1,500 750 1,200 750 500

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5 2

0.04% 0.02%

65.29% 65.29%

3,000 1,500

3,000 1,500

100% 100%

16

0.12%

65.29%

500

500

100%

Remarks

| 53

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535

Types of Business

Renu / Hatchery supplier (small)

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total)

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

61

0.46%

65.29%

Chanachur maker

2

0.02%

65.29%

800

800

100%

Gunny bag business man Ator (perfume), cap (tupi) seller

1 8

0.01% 0.06%

65.29% 65.29%

500 500

500 500

100% 100%

Musical instruments seller

1

0.01%

65.29%

400

400

100%

Light or key-lock repairer

1

0.01%

65.29%

500

500

100%

Shilpata, scale seller (small) Auctioneer

1 6

0.01% 0.05%

65.29% 65.29%

300 500

300 500

100% 100%

Bolder cresting factory

6

0.05%

65.29%

1,500

1,500

100%

Tier repair shop

2

0.02%

65.29%

500

500

100%

Books publishers & seller

18

0.14%

65.29%

1,000

1,000

100%

Puffed rice, parched rice maker & seller Cylinder gas dealer and distributer Show maker and seller Old tier business New spaper seller Water purification and distributor

1 46 5 2 2 15

0.01% 0.35% 0.04% 0.02% 0.02% 0.11%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

500 1,000 700 500 300 1,000

500 1,000 700 500 300 1,000

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Remarks

| 54

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Busi ness ID 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565

Types of Business

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total)

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis)

Assessed ratio (%)

Bricks, sands, cobblestone stock business

1

0.01%

65.29%

1,500

1,500

100%

Hosiery business

1

0.01%

65.29%

1,500

1,500

100%

285 5

2.16% 0.04%

65.29% 65.29%

500 500

500 500

100% 100%

Old cutting cloth seller

1

0.01%

65.29%

500

500

100%

Marketing & distribution shop (above 1 lakh to 3 lakh) Marketing & distribution shop (above 3 lakh to 10 lakh) Marketing & distribution shop (above 10 lakh to 30 lakh) Marketing & distribution shop (above 10 lakh to 50 lakh)

2 2 2 1

0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.01%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

59 1 6 2 18 1 1 65 5 58 10

0.45% 0.01% 0.05% 0.02% 0.14% 0.01% 0.01% 0.49% 0.04% 0.44% 0.08%

65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

1,500 1,500 3,000 1,500

1,500 1,500 3,000 1,500

100% 100% 100% 100%

15,000 5,000 750 750 750 750

15,000 5,000 750 750 750 750

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Dry fish seller (big) Dry fish seller (small)

Depot (for any goods) Mobile banking Dental clinic (big) Dental clinic (small) Online magazine Physiotherapy/ Therapy center (big) Physiotherapy/ Therapy center (small) Distributors ( for any goods) Belt seller Tourism Net rope seller (big)

Remarks

| 55

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 56

Data Survey : Trade Licence Pourashava :

Busi ness ID 566 567 568 569 570

Types of Business

Net rope seller (small) TomTom w orkshop/ Garage Rickshaw Garage Oyster business Pickles (achar) sales (big) Total Less 5% Variation [ as per note d & e ] After adjustment of 5% variation

Number of Percent of Licences Licences registered in registered ( PS data base as on total) 4 49 9 2 3 13199

0.03% 0.37% 0.07% 0.02% 0.02% 100%

Percent of Licences updated /coverage in FY 2017-18 (average 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29% 65.29%

Cox's Bazar

Fees applicable Fees as per Model charged by Tax PS (checked Schedule,2014 on sample (A Class PS) basis) 750 750 750 750 750

750 750 750 750 750

Assessed ratio (%)

Remarks

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 5% 95%

Source : Tra de Li cens e Softwa re (Da te 24/10/2018) Tra de l i cens e s ection , Cox's Ba za r Poura s ha va .

Notes : / (a ) Number of bus i nes s a s per i ts types i n the 'da ta s urvey l i s t/tabl e a bove' s hows s eri a l from 01-570. (b)) Out of total 570 types of bus i nes s , 349 (570-121) a re regi s tered i n the PS tra de l i cens e Softwa re da ta ba s e. ( 121 rows a s bl a nk) (c) Ba s ed on (b) i t ca n be s a i d a s 78.77% of bus i nes s a re i n covera ge a s per types (d) Mos t of the tra de l i cens e us ed to fol l ow the ra tes of Model Ta x Schedul e 2014. Indi ctors of s ome of bus i nes s to cl a s s i fy i ts s i ze a s bi g, medi um a nd s ma l l a re not gi ven i n the model tax s chedul e, therefore, there i s l i ttl e cha nce to ma ke / s how 'bi g bus i nes s ' a s to 'medi um s i ze bus i nes s ' a nd s a me a s 'medi um s i ze bus i nes s ' a s to 's ma l l bus i nes s . In fi el d vi s i t, i t wa s not pos s i bl e to veri fy thi s i s s ue by phys i ca l s a mpl i ng s urvey / s pot i nves tiga tion. (e.) 'Total As s es s ed Ra tio' on i ndi vi dua l ba s i s tra de us ed to s how 100% ; but a s per di s cus s i on wi th Li cens e Ins pector, he i nformed tha t i ndi vi dua l tra de ba s i s they ful l y fol l owed the ra tes of model tax s chedul e but devi a tion of 5% ma y be ha ppened i n s ome ca s es due to cl a s s i fyi ng the bus s i nes a s s i ze ba s i s noted i n (d). Ba s ed on the opi ni ons of Li cens e Ins pector, the total a s s es s ed ra tio of tra de l i cens e i s a s s umed a s 95% overa l l , i n thi s s tudy report.

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 57

Annex 4 Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Rental Shops

Num ber of total rental shops

276

sl

Shops Name and description

Number of Shops

a.

b

c

1 Puraton Pan Bazar Haukers Market 2 Mini Haukers Market -1st f loor

Sam pling Rent fixed during Original/Initial Contract Agreement Year of Original/Initia l Contract Agreemen d

Average Monthly Rent (TK) per shop e

Pourashava : Present Present Rent Market rent as expectedly Average can be Monthly Year increased Rent (TK) per (monthly) shop f

g

h

Cox's Bazar

Assessed ratio (%)

Remarks

i/(g/h)%

j

71

1982

150 2017-18

700

2000

35.00%

3

2017

2000 2017-18

2000

3000

66.67%

Mini Haukers Market -2nd f loor

6

2017

200 2017-18

200

300

66.67%

Mini Haukers Market -3rd f loor

7

2017

200 2017-18

200

300

66.67%

3 Enderson Haukers Market

25

1990

100 2017-18

1000

1500

66.67%

Enderson Haukers Market

6

1990

70 2017-18

800

1200

66.67%

4 Puraton Poura Market

34

1992

250 2017-18

1200

2000

60.00%

Puraton Poura Market

2

1992

350 2017-18

800

1200

66.67%

Puraton Poura Market

4

1992

150 2017-18

600

1000

60.00%

5 Nabo Nirmit Poura Super Market -1st f loor

12

1997

400 2017-18

2000

3500

57.14%

Nabo Nirmit Poura Super Market -1st f loor

12

1997

300 2017-18

1600

2500

64.00%

Nabo Nirmit Poura Super Market -2nd f loor

12

1999

400 2017-18

1500

2500

60.00%

Nabo Nirmit Poura Super Market -2nd f loor

12

1999

400 2017-18

1200

2000

60.00%

6 Super Market attachment shop

8

2000

150 2017-18

700

1000

70.00%

7 Puraton Fish Market

9

2003

250 2017-18

1200

3000

40.00%

8 Paraton Tarkari Shed

22

1998

300 2017-18

1050

1200

87.50%

9 Puraton Shukna Fish Arot

16

2003

300 2017-18

1050

1050

100.00%

Puraton Shukna Fish Arot

1

2003

250 2017-18

450

450

100.00%

1

2003

250 2017-18

450

450

100.00%

341 Average total

984

1587

Puraton Shukna Fish Arot Sample total

263 Average total

Total shops

276

Total current year rental demand 276 shops Total monthly rental demand 276 shops Average present rent of per shop

68.09% Result-1

3,643,200 303,600 1,100

Average total

1,100

1,587

69.32% Result-2 (accepted)

Source : Market Inspector, Cox;s Bazar Pourasahva Note: Data collected and presented above table only f or calculating assessed ratio (%) f or study purposes. Inf ormation received f rom Market Inspector only through discussion and review of rent collection register. For estimating expected rent it w as depended on the inf ormation given by Market Inspector . For Assessed Ratio (i) , in the table there has been f ound tw o results i.e. Result-1 deptictes 68.09%, and Result-2 depticites 69.32%. The gap betw een tw o results are very minimum. The highest Assessed Ratio (result-2) is taken here f or reporting.

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 58

Annex 5 Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Leasing Properties

Num ber of total leasing properties : 17

Sampling properties

13

Pourashava :

Actual Lease Amount (BDT)

sl

Name of leasing properties

a.

b 1 Baro Mas (Fish) Bazar

Bangla Year 1422 Bangla Year 1423 (FY2014-15) (FY2015-16)

c

d

Bangla Year 1424 (FY2016-17)

Bangla Year 1425 (FY2017-18)

e

f

Cox's Bazar Lease Value Assessed Value fixed offered by bidders leasing properties (through open fixed by PS ( with 25% tendering) in FY plus with last three 2017-18 / Actual years' average lease lease amount for amout) FY 2017-18) g=f

h=[(c+d+e)/3]+ 25%

Assessed ratio (%)

Remarks

i=(h/g)%

j

1,421,000

1,510,000

1,510,000

2,000,550

2,000,550

1,850,417

92.50%

2 Mas (Fish) Bazar

593,000

959,000

960,000

890,000

890,000

1,046,667

117.60%

3 Slaughter house

208,700

276,000

300,500

329,600

329,600

327,167

99.26%

4 Public Toilet, IBP Ground

105,000

110,000

137,000

125,000

125,000

146,667

117.33%

5 Public Toilet, Central bus stand

196,500

231,000

303,000

361,000

361,000

304,375

84.31%

1,250,000

1,050,000

1,510,334

1,356,317

1,356,317

1,587,639

117.06%

1,350,000

1,358,000

1,953,000

2,885,000

2,885,000

1,942,083

67.32%

8 Parkring of Truck, Covered van, mini-truck & picap

593,000

960,000

1,685,550

3,350,000

3,350,000

1,349,396

40.28%

9 Parking of Jeep, Micro, Noha, Hayes

487,600

620,000

721,000

802,110

802,110

761,917

94.99%

1,150,000

1,450,000

1,540,665

1,910,000

1,910,000

1,725,277

90.33%

32,200

41,600

52,500

58,000

58,000

52,625

90.73%

-

360,000

651,000

715,000

715,000

421,250

58.92%

6 Najiratak Shutki (dry fish) Mohal 7 Central bus stand including parking stands and counters

10 Parking of Jeep, Micro, Noha, Hayech 11 Poura Public Toilet and bath-house, Sador Hospital 12 Vehicle w ash ram, Central Bus Stand 13 Poura Public Toilet and bath-house, Laboni sea beach Total Yearly Increm ental grow th

420,200

605,000

643,000

652,000

652,000

695,083

106.61%

7,807,200

9,530,600

11,967,549

15,434,577

15,434,577

12,210,562

79.11%

-

18.08%

20.36%

22.46%

Notes:/ (a) A Ministry circular has recently been issued for fixation of govt. lease value by 6% plus w ith last three years of average lease value (actual). Previously it w as as 25%. (b) This study expects that revenue from 'leasing properties' in the coming years w ill remain same historical increasing trends like, in betw een 18.08% to 22.46%.[although by law it is now demanded 6% plus] (c.) Admin Officer of Cox's Bazar informed that all leasing properties are under fully custody to PS ow nership to lease out; therefore, in the study it is considered that coverage ratio of leasing properties to be 100%.

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

| 59

Annex 6 Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Total Revenue Analysis (BDT in lakh), FY2013-14 to FY2017-18 Pourashava : Cox's Bazar

Non-taxes (other than holding tax) Financial Year (FY)

Holding tax

Own Land ADP, source transfer Special, Development revenues fees non, and project (Holding (shared developm grants tax + non revenue) ent grants taxes) h=b+g i j k 560.96 240.12 8.44 880.54 601.38 378.21 2.69 137.92 860.74 315.93 3.49 76.00 961.14 328.18 4.65 155.00 1,316.13 364.64 6.06 440.40

Total incomes

Trade licenses

Own shop rent

Leasing of properties

b 219.44 266.51 343.30 453.82 667.80

c 138.78 161.63 267.14 224.06 324.60

d 16.26 21.75 29.77 25.00 32.27

e 172.55 106.86 164.81 226.12 243.18

f g=c+d+e+f 13.92 341.51 44.63 334.87 55.72 517.44 32.14 507.32 48.29 648.33

390.18

223.24

25.01

182.70

38.94

469.89

860.07

325.42

5.07

337.97

Percenage contribution of revenue items for a 5 year period

25.53%

14.61%

1.64%

11.95%

2.55%

30.74%

56.27%

21.29%

0.33%

22.11%

100.00%

Average growth /Reduction rate (%) over the last 5 years

15.56%

12.17% 10.77%

1.18%

35.94%

7.52%

10.66%

35.52%

-39.98%

-61.62%

-9.56%

a 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Average yearly collection of last 5 years

Misc.

Revenues

Total nontaxes

Source: Pourashava Budget books (actual incomes), Receipts & Payments Statement, and QPR of UGIIP-3 Note:/ Govt. transfers (k+j)

l=h+i+j+k 1,690.06 1,120.19 1,256.17 1,448.96 2,127.23 1,528.52

Annex 7

Assessm ent of Ow n-Source Revenue Potentiality Data Survey : Revenue Dem and & Collection of FY 2017-18 (BDT in lakh) Pourashava : Cox's Bazar

Revenue Items

Arrear demand Current Total demand of Total Collection of FY Collection as 1st July demand of FY FY 2017-18 2017-18 (arrear + efficiency of FY 2017 (BDT 2017-18 (BDT (arrear + current) current) (BDT lakh) 2017-18 (%) lakh) lakh) (BDT lakh)

a Holding tax

b

c 98.34

d = (b+c)

680.00

Trade license Rental shops Property leases

17.55

36.43

e

f = e/d (%)

778.34

667.80

85.80%

497.14

324.60

65.29%

53.99

32.27

59.77%

243.18

243.18

100.00%

Remarks

g

Source: Cox's Bazar Pourashava Note:/ (a) No information on demand of trade licenses was found available from PS. Therefore, study used to calculate it with proportionately like , BDT. 324.60 was collected from total 8618 licenses [annex 3(i)]. Thus, the average collection per license is BDT 3,766 [324 .60 lakh / 8618〗.Total numbers of registered licenses are 13199 [annex 3(i)] . Multiplying the average collection with total licenses i.e. BDT 3766 X 13199 ) the amount calculated as BDT 497.14 is taken in the study as demand of trade licence in FY2017-18 (b) As per rule, 100% of lease amount (biding amount) have to be deposited before leasing out any PS Property to leasees. Therefore, total amount collected from leasing is conditionally estimated here as the demand of leasing properties in FY2017-18.

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Abbreviation

ADB

Asian Development Bank

ADP

Annual Development Programme

AF

Additional Financing

AR

Assessed Ratio

BDT

Bangladeshi taka

CER

Collection Efficiency Ratio

FY

Financial Year

GICD

Governance Improvement and Capacity Development

GOB

Government of Bangladesh

LGED

Local Government and Engineering Department

O&M

Operation and Maintenance

PS

Pourashava

RPL

Revenue Potential Layout

STC

Standing Committee

TCR

Tax Coverage Ratio

TRP

Total Revenue Potential

UGIAP

Urban Governance Improvement Action Plan

UGIIP-III

Third Urban Governance and Infrastructure Improvement (Sector) Project-III

UnRP

Un Utilized/Un used Revenue Potential

URP

Utilized/Used Revenue Potential

| 61

Assessment of Revenue Potentials in Cox’s Bazar Pourashava

Revenue for Development

| 62