GH - THE REPUBLIC v. THE COMMISIONER-GENERAL OF THE GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY & ANOR

INTRODUCTION

This appeal elicits an exciting excursion as to the applicability of the relevant provisions of two tax enactments to the issue at stake and whether it is the generalia specialibus non derogant rule of hermeneutical interpretation that ought to be applicable or the leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant rule. The appeal is against the ruling of the court below in its refusal to grant a prayer for an order of mandamus to compel the Respondent/Respondent to make refund of cumulative amount of Ghc12,398,000.06 that the Applicant/Appellant adjudged to be excess tax paid by him to the Respondent between 2015 to 2019, together with interest. Our task is to examine whether the trial court correctly applied the relevant tax provisions to the resolution of the suit when it hinged its decision on section 50(1)(a) of the Value Added Tax (VAT) Act, 2013, Act 870. The parties would bear the designations that they carried at the court below as Applicant and Respondent.

APPLICANT'S CLAIM

By the invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under article 141 of the Constitution, the Applicant prayed, by its originating application, an order for mandamus. In an affidavit that accompanied the application deposed to by one Eric Bandomah, the Managing Accountant of the applicant company, he swore that the Applicant made excess tax payment for which it deserves a refund of the excess tax paid within a period of 90 days upon request made.
Based on the determination of its Accountants, Ernst & Young Ltd., after an audit that the Applicant had overpaid the Respondent in terms of its tax obligations for the years 2016-,2019, to the tune of VAT & NHIL in amount of Ghc12,335,784.17, Ernst & Young applied to Respondent on behalf of the Applicant for tax refund. The application was anchored on sections 67 and 68 of the Revenue Administration Act (RAA), Act 915. The Respondent through a letter objected to the demand for a tax refund. Respondent conceded that the Applicant had a credit balance of Ghc200,112 as tax due it and a VAT amount of Ghc12,197,887.6 which to Respondent had been credited to Applicant in accordance with section 50(1)(a) of the VAT Tax, 2013, Act 870.
In Applicant’s view it had overpaid its tax obligations to the tune of Ghc12,398.000.06, which was due it but the Respondent had refused to perform its public duty imposed by statute to refund the excess taxes paid. To Applicant it was contrary to sta

INTRODUCTION

This appeal elicits an exciting excursion as to the applicability of the relevant provisions of two tax enactments to the issue at stake and whether it is the generalia specialibus non derogant rule of hermeneutical interpretation that ought to be applicable or the leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant rule. The appeal is against the ruling of the court below in its refusal to grant a prayer for an order of mandamus to compel the Respondent/Respondent to make refund of cumulative amount of Ghc12,398,000.06 that the Applicant/Appellant adjudged to be excess tax paid by him to the Respondent between 2015 to 2019, together with interest. Our task is to examine whether the trial court correctly applied the relevant tax provisions to the resolution of the suit when it hinged its decision on section 50(1)(a) of the Value Added Tax (VAT) Act, 2013, Act 870. The parties would bear the designations that they carried at the court below as Applicant and Respondent.

APPLICANT'S CLAIM

By the invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under article 141 of the Constitution, the Applicant prayed, by its originating application, an order for mandamus. In an affidavit that accompanied the application deposed to by one Eric Bandomah, the Managing Accountant of the applicant company, he swore that the Applicant made excess tax payment for which it deserves a refund of the excess tax paid within a period of 90 days upon request made.

Based on the determination of its Accountants, Ernst & Young Ltd., after an audit that the Applicant had overpaid the Respondent in terms of its tax obligations for the years 2016-,2019, to the tune of VAT & NHIL in amount of Ghc12,335,784.17, Ernst & Young applied to Respondent on behalf of the Applicant for tax refund. The application was anchored on sections 67 and 68 of the Revenue Administration Act (RAA), Act 915. The Respondent through a letter objected to the demand for a tax refund. Respondent conceded that the Applicant had a credit balance of Ghc200,112 as tax due it and a VAT amount of Ghc12,197,887.6 which to Respondent had been credited to Applicant in accordance with section 50(1)(a) of the VAT Tax, 2013, Act 870.

In Applicant’s view it had overpaid its tax obligations to the tune of Ghc12,398.000.06, which was due it but the Respondent had refused to perform its public duty imposed by statute to refund the excess taxes paid. To Applicant it was contrary to sta

THE REPUBLIC v. THE COMMISIONER-GENERAL OF THE GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY & ANOR

Areas of Law

JUDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

APPLICANT'S CLAIM

INTRODUCTION

APPLICANT'S CLAIM