BEIERSDORF GHANA LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL, GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY [2018]DLHC3329

Date	2018-07-13
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.CM/TAX/0001/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3329

SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

YAW KYERE AMPADU ESQ. FOR DR. K. AINUSON FOR THE APPELLANT.

GILBERT AMISSAH ESQ. WITH MOHAMMED IBRAHIM ESQ. FOR CEPHAS ODARTEY LAMPTEY ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2018]DLHC3329
																																						<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" ><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>BEIERSDORF GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE COMMISSIONER
GENERAL, GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.CM/TAX/0001/2018&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; &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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 13TH
JULY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>YAW KYERE AMPADU ESQ., FOR
DR. K. AINUSON FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
appeal stems from an audit undertaken by the respondent herein into the tax
returns of the appellant herein for the accounting period of 2014, 2015 and
2016. <o:p></o:p>After
the said audit exercise, the respondent assessed the tax liability of the
appellant at an amount of GH₵1, 689,149.34 and thereafter, requested the appellant to pay the said
tax liability within a period of thirty (30) days. <o:p></o:p>After
notification of the tax liability, the appellant objected to the assessment and
after further examination by the respondent, the liability was reviewed to an
amount of GH₵1,085,392.36
after the appellant had brought to the notice of the respondent evidence of new
tax credit payments claimed and also taking into consideration the payment of
an amount of GH₵506,744.80
after notification of the tax liability.<o:p></o:p>The
Notice of Appeal, which was filed on the 8th January 2018, is
brought upon, basically, three main grounds which are that:<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The finding of CGRA that royalty payments made by
the Appellant to Beiersdorf AG (BDF) pursuant to an agreement between Appellant
and BDF for the use of the Nivea brand should not be allowed as a legitimate
business cost because of the failure of the Appellant to comply with prior
registration of the Royalty Agreement with the Ghana Investment Promotion
Center is wrong in law.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The finding of CGRA imposing liabilities with
respect to withholding tax is wrong in law.<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The decision of
the CGRA to characterize reimbursements paid to the distributor of Appellant
for work done by third party vendors as sales commission paid to the
distributors for which a withholding tax of 10% should apply is wrong in law.<o:p></o:p>