The Court of Appeal in Abuja has ordered parties in the administration of the Value Added Tax, VAT dispute to stay maintain status quo, pending the resolution of all legal issues in contention.
A three-member panel of the court on Friday, ordered parties in the VAT dispute to maintain status quo ante bellum and refrain from acts capable of jeopardising the res (subject of the dispute).
The court agreed with the lawyer to the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), Mahmud Magaji (SAN) that, having submitted to its (the court’s) jurisdiction, it was incumbent on parties to preserve the res.
Justice Haruna Simon Tsanami, in the lead ruling, ordered parties not to give effect to the August 9 judgment of Federal High Court in Port Harcourt and the VAT law enacted by Rivers State.
The court ordered parties to hold their peace pending the hearing of the application filed by FIRS for stay of execution of the judgment given by Justice Steven Pam in favour of Rivers State to collect VAT in the state.
The court equally granted leave to the Lagos State Government to bring an application to be heard in the case as an interested party in the appeal filed by FIRS against the Federal High Court judgment.
It noted that Lagos State’s right would be adversely effected if not heard.
The court then adjourned till September 16 for the hearing of pending applications, including the joinder application by Lagos.
What Was The Declaration Of The Federal High Court In Port Harcourt On The VAT Dispute?
It will be recalled that on August 9, 2021, the Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt had declared in the VAT dispute, saying that it is the Rivers State Government and not the Federal Inland Revenue Services (FIRS), that should collect Valued Added Tax (VAT) and Personal Income Tax (PIT) in the State.
The court, presided over by Justice Stephen Dalyop Pam, had also issued an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Federal Inland Revenue Service and the Attorney General of the federation, both first and second defendants in the suit, from collecting, demanding, threatening and intimidating residents of Rivers State to pay to FIRS, personnel income tax and Value Added Tax.
Justice Pam made the assertion while delivering judgement in Suit No. FHC/PH/CS/149/2020, filed by the Attorney General for Rivers State (plaintiff), against the Federal Inland Revenue Service (first defendant) and the Attorney General of the Federation (second defendant).
The Court, which granted all the eleven reliefs sought by the Rivers State Government, stated that there is no constitutional basis for the FIRS to demand for and collect VAT, Withholding Tax, Education Tax and Technology levy in Rivers State or any other State of the Federation, being that the constitutional powers and competence of the Federal Government is limited to taxation of incomes, profits and capital gains which does not include VAT or any other species of sales, or levy other than those specifically mentioned in items 58 and 59 of the Exclusive Legislative List of the Constitution.
The judge dismissed the preliminary objections filed by the defendants that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit and that the case should be transferred to the Court of Appeal for interpretation.
Justice Pam, who also dismissed the objection raised by the defendants that the National Assembly ought to have been made a party in the suit, declared that the issues of taxes raised by the State government are issues of law that the court is constitutionally empowered to entertain.
He declared that after a diligent review of the issues raised by both the plaintiff and the defendants, the plaintiff has proven beyond doubt that it is entitled to all the eleven reliefs it sought in the suit.
The court agreed with the Rivers State Government that it is the State and not FIRS that is constitutionally entitled to impose taxes enforceable or collectable in its territory of the nature of consumption or sales tax, VAT, education and other taxes or levies, other than the taxes and duties specifically reserved for the Federal Government by items 58 and 59 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the 1999 constitution as amended.
Also, the court declared that the defendants are not constitutionally entitled to charge or impose levies, charges or rates (under any guise or by whatever name called) on the residents of Rivers State and indeed any state of the federation.
Lead counsel for the Rivers State Government, Donald Chika Denwigwe (SAN), who spoke to journalists after the court session, explained that the case is all about the interpretation of the constitution as regards the authority of the government at the State and Federal levels to collect certain revenue particularly, VAT.
“So, during the determination of the matter, some issues of law were thrown up like, whether or not the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal for the determination of some issues.
“The court noted that the application is like asking the Federal High Court to transfer the entire case to the Court of Appeal. In which case, if the court so decides there will be nothing left to refer back to the Federal High Court as required by the constitution.”
Speaking on the implication of the judgement, Denwigwe said it is now, unlawful for such taxes as VAT in Rivers State to be collected by any agency of the Federal Government.