ORICA GHANA LIMITED v. THE COMMISSIONER-GENERAL GRA
January 22, 2026
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MENSAH-DATSA (MRS.), JA (PRESIDING)
- AHMED (MRS.), JA
- ARMAH-TETTEH, JA
Areas of Law
- Tax Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Administrative Law
January 22, 2026
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Ghana Court of Appeal dismissed the Ghana Revenue Authority’s (GRA) appeal from a High Court judgment that had favored a company manufacturing bulk commercial explosives. The dispute arose from a 2017 audit covering the 2010–2016 years, where the GRA apportioned the company’s income into manufacturing and non‑manufacturing streams, limited location incentives to manufacturing income, and rejected photocopied VAT Relief Purchase Orders (VRPOs) totaling US$6.62 million. The High Court upheld the company’s appeal, and the GRA challenged that outcome on grounds including misconstruction of Article 296(c), Section 58(4) of Act 896, Regulation 15(4) of L.I. 2177, Section 34 of Act 896, and weight of evidence. Affirming, the Court of Appeal held that photocopied VRPOs were admissible and properly accepted; that the single‑business rule under Section 58(4) encompasses integral services within a manufacturing business; that anti‑avoidance recharacterization was inapplicable; and that the High Court’s judgment was not against the weight of evidence. No costs were awarded.
This is an appeal by the Respondent/Appellant (hereafter referred to as Appellant) against the judgment of the High Court, Accra, Commercial Division dated 19th July, 2022 (as an appellate Court) in favour of the Appellant/Respondent (hereafter referred to as Respondent).
The grounds of appeal are stated at page 203 of the Record of Appeal as follows:
a. The Judgment is against the weight of evidence. b. The decision of the High Court to accept as authentic the disputed photocopied VAT Relief Purchase Orders (VRPOs) is against the weight of evidence. c. The High Court erred in law by holding that the Respondent erred in apportioning of the Appellant’s business income into manufacturing and management service.
Particulars of error of law
i. The High Court misconstrued the meaning and effect of Article 296 (c) of the 1992 Constitution on the exercise of discretionary power.
ii. The High Court misconstrued the meaning and effect of Section 58(4) of the Internal Revenue Act, 2015 (Act 896) on treatment of business activities of a company.iii. The High Court erred in law by misconstruing the meaning and legal effect of regulation 15(4) (a) (iii) and (b) of the Minerals and Mining Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2177) on certificates of competency, business licences and permits.
iv. The High Court erred in law by misconstruing the legal effect of Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896) on anti-avoidance rules.
v. The decision of the High Court to accept the photocopies of the VRPOs in dispute is against the weight of evidence adduced.
At the same page 203 of the Record of Appeal the Appellant stated another ground (c) as follows:
The High Court erred in law by holding that the Respondent erred in depriving and/or denying the Appellant location incentive as a manufacturing business.
Particulars of error of law
i. The High Court erred in law by construing Respondent’s conduct of apportioning Appellant’s business into manufacturing and management service management as recharacterization of its business.
We noted that none of the Counsel for the parties argued this second ground (c) so we deem it abandoned and will not address it.
The reliefs sought by the Respondent/Appellant from this Court are as follows:
i. An order setting aside the entire judgment of the High Court dated 19/07/22.
ii. Any other order(s) as this Honourable Court may