Tax & Regulatory · Bangladesh · Historical legislation
The practical challenge with a repealed schedule amendment is not simply finding the old document. It is keeping the historical text, the relevant period and the current legal position in their proper places. This article explains that source-control exercise using the 2025 Excises and Salt Ordinance as the example.
Why version control matters
A statutory schedule is read as part of a legal text at a given time. The official record for Ordinance No. 02 of 2025 provides a dated historical version: the Ordinance commenced immediately on 9 January 2025 and amended Part II of the First Schedule to the Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Where a contract, accounting file or historic calculation cites this instrument, the task is first to establish the period to which the reference belongs. It is not enough to locate a current consolidated statute and assume that it describes the prior wording.
The two substitutions the 2025 text records
The 2025 Ordinance altered Service Code E033.00 in the services table. It replaced Taka 300 with Taka 700 in paragraph (a), and Taka 3,000 with Taka 4,000 in paragraph (b). These are specific text substitutions, not a general statement about every scheduled charge. A useful historic file should preserve the code, paragraph, former figure, replacement figure and source URL together. That prevents an abbreviated reference from losing the context supplied by the schedule.
What the 2026 repeal notice does—and does not—say
The official portal states that the 2025 Ordinance was repealed by The Excises and Salt (Amendment) Act, 2026, Act No. 76 of 2026. The notice confirms that the Ordinance itself is no longer the current instrument. It does not, from that fact alone, establish that the later Act used the same provisions, the same figures or the same legal effects. A current assessment has to start with current primary materials; an historic assessment has to begin with the text in force for the historic event.
Keeping an audit trail intelligible
A clear record separates three propositions: what the 2025 instrument said, the time period to which that wording is relevant, and the materials governing today. The original legislative record should be saved with a citation to the schedule entry. Internal working papers should state plainly that the 2025 wording is historical. This is a method of source discipline, not a shortcut for deciding a present liability.
How to use a historical instrument responsibly
First fix the relevant date and issue. Next identify the exact provision and version of the source being cited. Finally keep the historical text separate from the current legal framework, including any current legislation, rules, notifications or other materials that may govern a live matter. The 2025 instrument can be useful evidence of a historic legislative position; it is not a substitute for a current-law review.
TRW & Co works across regulatory, disputes and institutional matters. Explore our practice areas, read further Perspectives, or contact the firm for advice on a particular matter.
Frequently asked questions
Why cite the repealed ordinance in a historic review?
A prior-period file may need the historical wording that was in force at the relevant time. The official 2025 record supplies that limited historical source. Read the official record
What details should a historic schedule citation retain?
Retain the instrument number, commencement date, statutory schedule, service code, paragraph and exact former and substituted amounts. Read the official record
Does a repeal notice prove what current law says?
No. It establishes the status of the earlier instrument. Current statutory wording and relevant implementation materials must be checked separately. Read the official record
Primary materials
The provisions discussed in this insight are drawn from the official Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division record. Readers should use the primary source and current authoritative materials for any present-day legal question.
This publication is general legal information. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon without advice tailored to the facts, jurisdiction and time period concerned.