The Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) has appealed a recent judgment of the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt Rivers State on the issue of Value Added Tax (VAT)collection.
The FIRS disclosed this in a statement by its Director, Communications and Liaison Department, Abdullahi Ismaila Ahmad.
The statement partly read: “This is to inform the general public that the Federal Inland Revenue Service has lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court Port Harcourt Judicial Division delivered by Honourable Justice Stephen Pam, in SUIT NO. FHC/PH/CS/149/2020-ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE v. FEDERAL INLAND REVENUE SERVICE & ANOTHER. We have also sought an injunction pending appeal and a Stay of Execution of the said judgment.
“As the decision is being appealed and in view of the pending applications for injunction and stay of execution which the FIRS has filed in court against the judgement, members of the public are advised to continue complying with the Value Added Tax obligations until the matter is resolved by the appellate courts in order to avoid accruing the consequent penalties and interest for non-compliance.”
A Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, recently held that the Rivers State Government and not the FIRS, was the rightful authority to collect Value-Added Tax, VAT, and Personal Income Tax (PIT), in the state.
The trial judge, Justice Stephen Pam, also restrained FIRS and the Attorney-General of the Federation, both 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit, from collecting, demanding, threatening and intimidating residents of Rivers State to pay to FIRS, both PIT and VAT.
Justice Pam in his judgment in the suit by the Attorney-General for Rivers State against FIRS and AGF granted all the 11 reliefs sought by the Rivers Government.
The court held that there was no constitutional basis for the FIRS to demand and collect VAT, Withholding Tax, Education Tax and Technology Levy in Rivers or any other state of the federation, being that the constitutional powers and competence of the Federal Government was 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 court agreed with the Rivers Government that it was the state and not FIRS that is constitutionally entitled to impose taxes enforceable or collectable in its territory like 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.