A Federal High Court in Port Harcourt has ruled that the Rivers Government and not the Federal Inland Revenue Services, FIRS, should collect the Valued Added Tax, VAT, and Personal Income Tax, PIT, in the State.
Justice Stephen Dalyop Pam who made the ruling also ordered a perpetual injunction restraining the FIRS and the Attorney-General of the Federation, both first and second defendants in the suit, “from collecting, demanding, threatening and intimidating residents of Rivers State to pay to FIRS, personnel income tax and VAT.”
These were contained in Justice Pam’s ruling in suit No. FHC/PH/CS/149/2020: Attorney-General for Rivers State vs FIRS (first defendant) and Attorney-General of the Federation (second defendant).
The court granted all the eleven reliefs sought by the Rivers State Government and stated that there was no constitutional basis for the “FIRS to demand for and collect VAT, Withholding Tax, Education Tax and Technology levy in Rivers State or any other state of the Federation.”
The judge said that the constitutional powers and competence of the Federal Government was limited to taxation of incomes, profits and capital gains, which did 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.
He dismissed the preliminary objections filed by the defendants that the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the suit and that the case should be transferred to Court of Appeal for interpretation.
Also, Justice Pam dismissed objection raised by the defendants that the National Assembly ought to have been made a party in the suit, declaring that the issues of taxes raised by the state government were the matters of law that the court was constitutionally empowered to entertain.
He declared that after a diligent review of the issues raised by the plaintiff and the defendants, the plaintiff had proven beyond doubt that it was entitled to all the eleven reliefs it sought in the suit.
The Court agreed with the Rivers State Government that it was the state and not FIRS that was constitutionally entitled to impose taxes enforceable or collectable in its territory of the nature of 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.