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