The Rivers State Government yesterday dragged the Federal Government to the Supreme Court to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal that ordered it to maintain the status quo on the collection of Value Added Tax (VAT) pending the determination of an appeal that was lodged by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS).
The state noted that the three-man panel of Justices of the Court of Appeal led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, which delivered a ruling last Friday, erred in law when they relied on the provisions of Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution and the inherent jurisdiction of the appellate court, to order all the parties to maintain status quo on the VAT dispute.
In the 10 grounds of appeal, the state, through its Attorney-General, prayed the apex court to order that the substantive appeal by the FIRS marked CA/PH/282/2021, and all other processes therein, be heard and determined by a new panel of the Court of Appeal.
The state argued that the Court of Appeal legal did not have the powers to restore the parties to the position they were before the judgment of the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt in suit No. FHC/PH/CS/149/2020, which was delivered on August 9.
“The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal In relying on the inherent jurisdiction of the court to make the order on the subject matter of this Appeal, failed to appreciate that the inherent jurisdiction of the court cannot be applied in contravention of statutory provisions.
“The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal failed to appreciate the nature of inherent jurisdiction and that it cannot be invoked to circumvent the clear provisions of the statute as it was done with regards to Order 6 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 in this case”.
Why 5G network won’t be available for now – Senate
Besides, the state argued that the Court of Appeal panel erred in law when they wrongly assumed jurisdiction to entertain on the oral application that counsel of the FIRS made for the maintenance of status quo by parties in the dispute, although condition precedent for the invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of the appellate court was not fulfilled by the 1st Respondent (FIRS).
The state noted that the appellate court denied it a fair hearing by proceeding to make a far-reaching decision based on the oral application by FIRS.
Last Friday, the Court of Appeal in Abuja stopped Rivers and Lagos states from proceeding to collect VAT in their states, pending the determination of the appeal by FIRS.
