VIVO ENERGY GHANA LTD vs. CORE CONSTRUCTION LTD AND GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY [2018]DLHC6266

Date	2018-06-20
Suit No.	Suit No. CM/0267/16
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC6266

JENNIFER DODOO (MRS)

DOMINIC BRENYA OTCHERE FOR PLAINTIFF

ERIC DELANYO ALIFO FOR 1ST DEFENDANT

MRS. JOYCE AMPAH FOR 2ND DEFENDANT

[2018]DLHC6266
																																						<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" >VIVO ENERGY GHANA LTD<o:p></o:p>{PLAINTIFF}<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CORE CONSTRUCTION LTD AND GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY<o:p></o:p>{DEFENDANTS}<o:p></o:p>[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">

Suit No. CM/0267/16&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: 20TH JUNE 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>DOMINIC BRENYA OTCHERE FOR PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p>ERIC DELANYO ALIFO FOR 1ST
DEFENDANT<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">

MRS. JOYCE AMPAH FOR 2ND
DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>JENNIFER DODOO (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE
HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Plaintiff’s claim against the 1st
Defendant was for an amount of GH¢1,221,831.54 together with interest.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The background to this suit was that
the Plaintiff, an oil marketing company, supplied bitumen AC20 to the 1st
Defendant, a road construction company.&nbsp;
The 1st Defendant had failed to pay for the products supplied
saying that the Plaintiff had charged import levies and VAT contrary to the
ECOWAS Trade Liberalization Scheme (ETLS).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The 1st Defendant
therefore made a counterclaim for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">A declaration that under the
 Value Added Tax Act, 2013 (Act 870) and other related laws, Bitumen AC20
 is exempt from VAT.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">Under the ECOWAS Trade
 Liberalization Scheme, which Ghana is committed to, Bitumen AC20
 manufactured and imported from Cote D’Ivoire is exempted from import duty.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">A declaration that the
 Plaintiff was wrong by including VAT and import duty in the prices of
 Bitumen AC20 that was purchased from it by the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">An order to the Plaintiff to
 refund to the 1st Defendant the amount of GH¢292,549.42 being
 the excess of VAT and import duty, which the Plaintiff had wrongly charged
 the 1st Defendant on all of the transaction between them.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">Interest on the amounts in
 paragraph (c) above at the prevailing bank rate starting from the period
 the Court would deem reasonable, taking into account the various periods
 beginning from 2012 that the VAT and import duty were charged by the
 Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">Costs including attorneys’
 fees.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The 2nd Defendant which
was later on joined to the suit, stated in its defence that the 1st
Defendant was not entitled to apply for a refund since it had not paid any
import duty to the 2nd Defendant.&nbsp;
It was of the opinion that it was only the person who had wrongly paid
import duties who could ask for a refund and since the Plaintiff had not
wrongly paid import duty or VAT, the issue of a refund did not arise at all.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The issues forwarded to this court
for trial were:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">Whether or not under the ECOWAS
 Trade Liberalization Scheme, in the second schedule Part 1 heading 27.14
 of the ECOWAS Preferential Rates, bitumen, AC20 which, the 1st
 Defendant had purchased from the Plaintiff is liable for import duty?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">Whether or not by the
 determination of issue 1, the Plaintiff was right in charging the 1st
 Defendant an amount of GH¢586,455.91 being import duty of 10% on bitumen AC20,
 which the 1st Defendant had purchased from the Plaintiff?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">Whether if indeed the import
 duty of GH¢586,455.91 was indeed illegal, the Plaintiff must be entitled
 to any amount in excess of GH¢635,375.63 being the difference between the
 Plaintiff’s main claim against the 1st Defendant and the
 illegal charges of import duty on the product.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">Whether in the light of the
 determination of all the issues above, the Plaintiff is entitled to its
 reliefs against the 1st Defendant?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">Whether or not the Plaintiff is
 entitled to its claim?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">Whether or not the 1st
 Defendant is entitled to its counterclaim?<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>