ACCESS BANK LTD (PLAINTIFF) vs. MARKET DIRECT & ORS (DEFENDANTS) [2018]DLHC7181

Date	2018-05-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/0048/16
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC7181

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

A.A. ACKUAKU JNR FOR THE APPLICANT

CALEB OKOE FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2018]DLHC7181
																																						<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" >ACCESS BANK LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MARKET DIRECT &amp; ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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/0048/16&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 21ST
MAY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>A.A. ACKUAKU JNR FOR THE APPLICANT<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">

CALEB
OKOE FOR THE RESPONDENT
<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K.
KOOMSON (J).<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="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>In this application the Receivers/Managers/Applicants
pray the Court for a declaratory Order that the Revenue Administration Act, 2016
(Act 915) is not applicable to a secured debt which has a proceeding on it
pending in a court of law and for a further order debonding the warehouse of
the 4th Defendant which has been the subject-matter of sale during
the Receivership period.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I have read the application and supporting
affidavit.&nbsp; I have further read the
affidavit in opposition and the supplementary affidavit in opposition.&nbsp; Regard has been given to the oral submissions
made by both Counsel for and against the motion.&nbsp; I have given thoughtful consideration to
Section 110(5) and 111 of the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915) and
Section 46(7) of the Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is however useful for me to place emphasis on the
Section 46(7) of the 7th Schedule of Act 896 which provides:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “Subparagraph
(6) does not apply to secured debt”<o:p></o:p>The preceding paragraph 6 had stated that in making
payment out of proceeds of the sale of assets, a receiver shall give priority
to unpaid Value Added Tax and withholding tax over all other debts of the tax
payer.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the case before me, the issues which I have to
resolve are whether or not the Act 915 can have retroactive effect and thereby
place a duty on the receivers to settle the tax debt of the company under
receivership (if any) as a priority.&nbsp; The
other issue is as to whether it is just for the court to order the debonding of
the warehouse.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the first place, Ghana Revenue Authority has failed
to establish that the 4th Defendant owed any Value Added Tax or a
withholding tax.&nbsp; GRA filed an affidavit on
18th May, 2018 with a demand notice attached which is dated May 13,
2016.&nbsp; Reading through the said exhibit
GRA ‘1’, I do not find any reference to a withholding tax or Value Added
Tax.&nbsp; The paragraph 3 of the said demand
notice states:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“Total duties, taxes and penalty payable amounts to
Twenty-three Million, One Hundred and seventy-One Thousand, Two Hundred and
Seventy-One Ghana Cedis and four pesewas (GH¢23,171,271.04).”<</main>