HELVENT INVESTMENTS LTD v. GOLD COAST FUND MANAGEMENT
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- H/L JEROME NOBLE-NKRUMAH
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tax Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant to recover an amount of GHC1539, 152.00 plus interest and obtained a default judgment for non-appearance pursuant to Order 10 Rule 1 of CI 47. The Defendant sought to set aside the writ claiming it violated section 11 and paragraphs 1[9] and 2[8] of Act 915 due to the absence of the Plaintiffs Tax Identification Number (TIN). The court held that the Act does not mandate the disclosure of a TIN on the writ, supporting the view that this is an administrative requirement to be satisfied at the filing stage. The court presumed regularity in the issuance of the writ absent evidence to the contrary and dismissed the Defendants application.
The Plaintiff Respondent sued the Defendant Applicant on the 1/11/18 tor the recovery of the amount of GHC1539, 152.00 plus interest.
Upon the Plaintiff Respondent obtaining a Judgment in Default of Appearance pursuant to Order 10 Rule 1 of CI 47 against the Defendant Applicant, the present application lies seeking an order of court setting aside or striking out the writ for want of Jurisdiction and for being in violation of section 11 and paragraphs 1{9] and 2[8] of Act 915.
The defendants argument has basically been that the Plaintiff failed to show/ disclose its Tax Identification Number [ TIN] on the writ of summons and statement of claim in contravention of Section 11 and paragraphs 1]9] and 2{8] of part | of the first schedule of the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 [Act 915].
It is urged on this court that a party shall not be permitted to conduct any business unless the party does quote his TIN on the writ. This lacking on the face of the Plaintiffs writ, it is the Defendant Applicant’s case that the process is a nullity . Therefore a default judgement cannot be founded on it.
Responding in opposition to this application, it is urged on this court by the Plaintiff Respondent that judgement has already been given in this Matter and the court is functus officio and that the application is misconceived and does not reflect the intent and purpose of the Act. That section 11[1] of the Act does not make it mandatory for a party to endorse his TIN on the writ as the Act only says a person shall show.
Section 11 and 11[2] of the Revenue Administration Act, 2016[Act 915] reads
1.1. Tax payer ldentification Number or Tax Clearance Certificate
[2] Except where otherwise directed by the Commissioner-General in writing. an institution specified in the first schedule shall request for-
[a] a Taxpayer Identification Number from a person who conducts official business with that institution; or
[b] A Tax Clearance Certificate from a person applying for the matters of engaged in the transactions listed in column two of Part I of the First schedule
Part 1 of the First Schedule of Act 915 also provides:
The Taxpayer Identification Number System
1. The Taxpayer Identification Number System applies to the following-
[1] The Ghana Revenue Authority
[2] The Controller and Accountant General’s Department
[3] The Registrar general’s Department
[4] The Registrar of Co-operatives
[5] The Lands Commission
[6] The Immigration