PERSEUS MINING (GH) LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL

BRIGHT MENSAH JA:

The appellant/appellant herein simply referred to as the appellant, has launched the instant appeal against the decision of the High Court (Commercial Division), Accra dated 08/02/2022 that went in favour of the respondent/respondent herein, also simply referred to as the respondent. The judgment of the lower court complained of, appears on pp 180-183 of the record of appeal [roa] Vol. 4.

The appellant aggrieved by the said judgment has filed this appeal on a number of grounds, namely that:

The judgment is against the weight of evidence.

The learned appellate judge erred in law by applying the law without first resolving the primary facts and stating his findings.

Particulars of error of law

i) The learned appellate judge erred in law by holding that the respondent/respondent was right in invoking Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896) without making findings of primary facts.

ii) The learned appellate judge erred in law when he concluded that the forward sales contract involved related parties without any cogent evidence on record to support.

iii) The learned appellate judge erred in law by holding that the forward sales contract was a tax avoidance mechanism without any cogent evidence on record.

iv) The learned appellate judge erred in law by holding that the respondent/respondent was right in treating the forward sales contract as a tax avoidance scheme without any cogent evidence on record in support.

The learned appellate judge erred in law by misconstruing the legal requirements under Section 92(1) of the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915) and the appellant/appellant's obligation in producing sufficient evidence as proof in law.

Particulars of error of law:

i) The learned appellate judge erred in law in holding that the respondent/respondent's evaluation of the documents, acts and transactions vis-à-vis the tax laws, practice and convention in the industry both local and international determined whether the proof offered by the appellant/ appellant is proof in law.

ii) The learned appellate judge erred in law in holding that it is the respondent/respondent who determines whether the evidence offered by the appellant/appellant is capable of discharging the onus of proof.

iii) The learned appellate judge erred in law by relying on the respondent/respondent's evaluation of the appellant/ appellant's documents and the forward sales contract as the standard of proof.

iv) The learned appellate judge err