THE REPUBLIC vs. THE GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY EXPARTE ACS AFRICA COASTAL SERVICES LTD [2018]DLHC11485

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY EXPARTE ACS AFRICA COASTAL SERVICES... [2018]DLHC11485

Date	2018-02-01
Suit No.	SUIT NO. El0/3/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC11485

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI FRIMPONG

KWASI BLAY FOR Applicant

NANA AKUA ACHIAA MENSAH For Respondent

[2018]DLHC11485
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY EXPARTE ACS AFRICA COASTAL SERVICES
LTD<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, TEMA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO. El0/3/2018 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
1ST FEBRUARY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWASI BLAY FOR Applicant<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

NANA AKUA ACHIAA
MENSAH For Respondent<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI FRIMPONG <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;The
Applicant Company invokes the judicial review jurisdiction of this court in the
nature of mandamus to compel the Ghana Revenue Authority, the Respondent herein
to issue the Applicant with a Tax Clearance Certificate.<o:p></o:p>The
affidavit in support of the application recounts that the Respondent in
December 2016 carried out a tax audit on the applicant company for the years
2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. The audit resulted in a demand on the
Applicant to pay various sums of money in full settlement of direct and
indirect tax liabilities as well as liability or National Fiscal Stabilization
Levy (NFSL). The Applicant's liability on the levy was assessed at
GH¢667,611.07.<o:p></o:p>The
Applicant's case however, is that it is not enjoined by the National Fiscal
Stabilization Levy Act Act 862 to pay the said levy. In the meantirne it
settled all its assessed direct and indirect tax liabilities. On its behalf, the
Applicant's external auditors filed a protest assigning reasons why it was not
liable to pay the NFSL. The Respondent refuted the protest and insisted on the
payment. The Applicant has stood its ground, but in compliance with the
provision of the law it has proceeded to pay 30% of the levy pending the
resolution of the dispute.<o:p></o:p>Meanwhile
the Applicant says it required a Tax Clearance Certificate to enable it renew
its licence with the Ghana Investment Promotion Council (GIPC) and the
residence permits of its expatriate's staff to carry out its operations. It
made a written demand on the respondent to issue the certificate. The
Respondent has however refused on its demand citing the non fulfillment of NFSL
liability. The refusal according to the Applicant is dversely affecting its
operations. It thus seeks the intervention of this Court by invoking its
supervisory jurisdiction in terms of the application.<o:p></o:p>In
response, the Respondent contends that the dispute mounted by the Applicant's
protest has been resolved with the determination that the Applicant is liable
under the law to pay the levy.<o:p></o:p>With
that determination, the Applicant's remedy may lie in launching an appeal
against the decision. The instant action is therefore inappropriate.<o:p></o:p>Further,
by section 14 of the Revenue Administration Act, a tax Clearance Certificate
shall be issued only when it is determined that the Applicant has no
outstanding tax obligation. This is not so of the Applicant. It is thus urged
upon this court to dismiss the application.<o:p></o:p>Now,
it is not in any dispute that the Applicant requires the Tax Clearance
Certificate for the purposes disclosed. Obviously, that fact alone however, is
not sufficient to warrant the court's intervention.&nbsp; What is to be determined is whether
sufficient legal and factual basis has been advanced to trigger the exercise of
the court's discretionary power, as ,the relief is a discretionary remedy.<o:p></o:p>In
the REPUBLIC VRS HIGH COURT KOFORIDUA, EXPARTE AFFUM. (DECO) 2012 1 SCGLR 78, it was held
that mandamus being a discretionary reme_dy, a court may exercise its
discretion to deny the grant, even more so when it is found that there is a
good reason behind the refusal to act on the part of whichever public body that
had the duty to act.<o:p></o:p>Similarly&nbsp; in&nbsp;
the&nbsp; REPUBLIC &nbsp;VRS CONTROLLER&nbsp;
&amp;&nbsp; ACCOUNTANT&nbsp; GENERAL, EXPARTE DIZENGOFF W/A LYD
(1974) 1 GLR 337 it was decided thus even if it was found that the public body
had a statutory duty to perform, an application for mandamus could be refused
if the public body had good cause for refusing to perform that duty. See also
.the REPUBLIC VRS NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEF EXPART KUSI APEA (1984-86) 2 GLR 90.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:107%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">a)