SEADRILL GHANA OPERATIONS LIMITED v. THE COMMISSIONER-GENERAL GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY

TANKO AMADU, JSC:

INTRODUCTION

1.Tax legislations, and their construction continue to engage our courts in the effort to provide certainty in the law. The entrenched position at common law remains that, tax statutes must be strictly construed and implied. The Legislature should be deemed to have intended only what they have expressed in a tax statute. It is no function of the court, to urge a certain purposive or benevolent construction at variance with the strict terms of a tax statute. In the recent decision of this court jin the case of MAERSK DRILLSHIP IV SINGAPORE PTE LTD. VS. THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 34/59/2024 DATED 2 APRIL 2025, where I had the privilege of delivering the lead majority opinion, I observed inter alia as follows:-

Tax law is one area of law where enforcement and interpretation of regulatory provisions command strict construction. Under our constitutional and legislative regimes, unless the legisfature or such other person empowered by the Constitution and relevant statute sanctions the payment of taxes, or exemptions from payment, no person can deviate nor evade compliance. Any deviation or evasion will attract enforcement and potential sanctions as provided by regulating Statutes. Therefore, in any adjudication regarding issues of tax, the adjudicator must confine himself to the law which imposes or dispenses with the element of tax. Upon ascertainment, the statute must be strictly construed and enforced.

Baring the abuse of the rights of individuals regarding tax obligations, as well as the attempt by persons to evade their tax obligations, the legislature has carefully delineated a legislative framework to address compliance. What this simply means Is that, the tax officer does not wield unregulated power in the administration and enforcement of tax laws. The powers invested in the officer are statutorily and procedurally limited, and hence, any unfair application inconsistent with the due process must not be countenanced.

2.This dispute, which has travelled from the High Court, through to the Court of Appeal, and now to this Court revolves around the construction of a simple and common, but, within context of the disputants, a convoluted phrase, tax decision. The core issue for determination is to ascertain the meaning of a fax decision as provided under the relevant provisions o