IN THE TAX APPEAL TRIBUNAL
IN THE LAGOS ZONE
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
APPEAL NO: TAT/LZ/CIT/121/2022
BEWTEEN
CHECK POINT SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES B. V NIG LTD………. APPELLANT
AND
FEDERAL INLAND REVENUE SERVICE …………………………………... RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Appellant was served with Notices of Administrative Penalties dated 10th day of March, 2022 and 15th day of March, 2022 respectively for late filing of the 2019 and 2020 Country by Country Notifications under the CBC Regulations, 2018. Despite the Appellant’s letters of objection dated 21st day of March, 2022 and 22nd day of March, 2022 respectively, the Respondent has not withdrawn the Notices. The basis of the Appellant’s objection is that, same is illegal, ultra-vires, null and void, hence this Appeal on the grounds that, the Respondent erred in law and acted ultra-vires and in contravention of the Statute/Act of the National Assembly setting up the Respondent itself, when it sought by mere regulation to impose a penalty for late filing of CBC Notification beyond what was clearly stipulated as penalty in the Federal Inland Revenue Establishment Act (FIRSEA), the substantive statute which the 2018 CBC regulation sought to enforce.
The OECD Country by Country Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (CBC MCAA) pursuant to which the FIRS CBC Regulations 2018 was made by the Respondent, is an International Treaty/Instrument/Agreement not yet domesticated by the National Assembly as required by Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, hence unenforceable within the Territory of Nigeria, likewise is the CBC Regulations 2018 made by the Respondent to enforce its provisions in Nigeria.
The Appellant has therefore filed this action before this Honorable Tribunal for resolutions of the issues raised therein.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The following issues have been formulated for determination by the parties, to wit:
1. Whether the CBC Regulation 2018 NOT made by the Board of the FIRS as mandatorily required by Section 61 of the FIRS Act is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and hence liable to be quashed by the Tribunal as well as the Notices of Administrative penalties served on the Appellant by the Respondent on the enforcement of same.
2. Whether the Respondent can administer the Income Tax Country by Country Reporting Regulation 2018 against the Appellant.
PARTIES SUBMISSIONS
THE APPELLANT
On issue one above, it is the submission of the Appellant that, the FIRS Board is created pursuant to Section 3 of the FIRS Act and Section 4 provides for the tenure of the Board also the powers and functions of the Board is provided for in Section 7 of the Act. The Appellant submitted that in addition, power was delegated to the Board by the National Assembly under Section 61 of the Act, empowering the Board to make subsidiary legislation in form of Regulations (with the approval of the Minister of Finance.
The Appellant stated that, in terms of Regulations to be made by the FIRS Board under Section 61 of the FIRS Act, the FIRS Act itself is the parent or principal legislation from which such regulation derives its validity. They maintained that, as a matter of strict rule regulating the operation of delegated legislation, a parent statute usually names the person or body that should exercise the power it creates. That the power to make the law can be validly exercised only by the person or body named as the donee of the delegated legislative power. The Appellant stated further that, any attempt by a different person or body to exercise the power will be futile, hence a subsidiary law, made by a person or body other than the donee of the power is invalid and inoperative. They submitted that, any transfer of such power by the donee to another person or authority constitutes an invalid sub-delegation of authority. The cases of ALLIGHAM V. MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (1947) 1 ALL ER 780 and HOWARD V. BEDINGTON (1877) 2 P.D. 203, 210 were relied upon by the Appellant.
The Appellant submitted that, Section 61 of the FIRS Act pursuant to which the National Assembly delegated law-making powers to make subsidiary legislation on the Board of the FIRS, does not create any exception nor give the Board any powers whatsoever to sub-delegate the law making powers delegated to it. They relied on the cases of YAKASSAI V. NIGERIAN AIR FORCE (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt. 790) and LAAH V. OPALUWA (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 879) 588. The Appellant maintained that, FIRS Board was dissolved in 2012 and all the executive chairmen that were appointed since then managed the agency without a Board until January, 2020 (8 years after) when a board was constituted for the agency. That, the non-existing board members between 2012 to 2020 could not have made the FIRS CBC Regulations in February, 2018.
The Appellant equally submitted that, the CBC Regulation 2018 is a replica of the Country-by-Country Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (CBC MCAA), an International Multilateral Agreement. The Appellant maintained, it violates Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution in trying to enforce in Nigeria, an International Agreement not yet ratified by the National Assembly as mandatorily required by the Constitution, and is hence null and void. The Appellant stated further that, Section 1(a) of the CBC Regulation 2018 stipulates that the Regulation was to give effect to the Country-by-Country Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (CBC MCAA), an International Multilateral Agreement signed by Nigeria on the 27th January, 2016 and ratified by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) on the 3rd of August 2016, but however yet to be ratified or domesticated by the National Assembly as compulsorily required by Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution. The Appellant further maintained that, this fact was admitted by the Respondent in Paragraph 17, page 5 of the Respondent’s Final Written Address dated the 7th of July, 2023. That this confirms that a search through the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) for list of Ratification Acts, enacted by the National Assembly in respect of various International Bilateral and Multilateral Treaties or Agreement entered into by Nigeria, will clearly show that a Ratification Act is yet to be enacted by the National Assembly for the enforceability of the CBC MCAA in Nigeria, hence there is no Ratification Act in the Laws of the Federation in respect of the CBC MCAA simply because same is yet to be ratified by the National Assembly as compulsorily required by Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution. The Appellant stated further that, the Respondent can’t hide behind the veil of delegated legislation as a disguise to make regulations seeking to enforce in Nigeria an International Multilateral Agreement/Treaty not yet ratified by the National Assembly as compulsorily required by Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution. The Appellant submitted that, it is the Act of ratification of an International Multilateral Treaty or Instrument by the National Assembly and not that of the Federal Executive Council, that qualifies such international instrument for domestication and enforceability in the territory of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and as such, the CBC Regulation is unconstitutional, null and void and unenforceable in Nigeria. The case of A.G FEDERATION V. ANUEBUNWA (2022) 14 NWLR (Pt, 1850) 263.
The Appellant maintained further that, in view of the fact that the CBC Regulation 2018 was not made by the Board of the FIRS as compulsorily required by Section 61 of the FIRS (Establishment) Act 2007, in addition to the fact that the Regulation seeks to enforce in Nigeria, an International Multilateral Agreement not yet ratified by the National Assembly as compulsorily required by Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, the CBC Regulation 2018 is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and should be so pronounced by the Honorable Tribunal. The case of MACFOY V. UNITED AFRICA CO. LTD (1961) 3 ALL ER 1169 at 1172 was relied upon by the Appellant. The Appellant therefore urged this Honorable Tribunal to quash the Notices of Administrative Penalties served on the Appellant by the Respondent dated 10th of March, 2022 and 15th of March, 2022 respectively (and/or any other Notices served on the Appellant in that regard thereafter) to demand for payment of penalties in the enforcement of the CBC Regulation 2018 for been illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.
The Appellant stated that, delegated legislation refers to rules, instructions, directives which are made pursuant to a delegated authority to legislate. The Appellant maintained that, delegated legislations are inferior to laws pursuant to which they were enacted. The cases of NNPC V. FAMFA OIL LTD (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1328) 148 at 195 and CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE V. JOSEPH REZCALLAH & SONS LTD (1961) NRNLR 32 at 38 were cited in support of this position. The Appellant submitted therefore that, the exercise of delegated legislative powers to make CBC Regulations 2018 is subject to the principal legislation which is Section 61 of the FIRS Act 2007, conferring such delegated powers. The Appellant stated further that, Section 68 of the FIRS Act, item No. 8 on the list of laws in the First Schedule to the FIRS Act which are subject to the FIRS Act states that, “All Regulations Proclamation government notices or rules issued in terms of these legislation” are part of the laws subject to the FIRS Act. That flowing from this provision, any regulation made by the Board which is inconsistent with the FIRS Act, shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.
The Appellant submitted that, late filing of CBC Notification is a contravention, unrelated to tax liability, hence the applicable penalty is as stipulated in Section 26(3)(b) of the FIRS Act. That in this regard, Section 1(b) of the CBC Regulation 2018 itself clearly state that the Regulation was made to give effect to Section 26 of the FIRS Act. The Appellant maintained that, the Regulation cannot impose penalties beyond what is clearly stipulated in Section 26 of the FIRS Act. The Appellant stated that, subsidiary law is not necessarily valid if made strictly in accordance with the procedural requirements of its parent statute, hence a subsidiary law will still be invalid if it extends or applies to persons, agencies or things expressly or impliedly placed beyond its range or scope by the parent statute. The Appellant therefore submitted that, the imposition of penalty for non-filing or late filing of CBC Notification is beyond the scope of the delegated legislative powers donated to the FIRS Board by the National Assembly under Section 61 of the FIRS Act, the penalty for same having been clearly prescribed in the Act of the National Assembly by Section 26(3)(b) of the FIRS Act.
The Appellant urged this Honorable Tribunal to grant all the Reliefs sought in the Notice of Appeal.
THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent on the other hand submitted that, the Income Tax Country by Country Regulation 2018 are made pursuant to the FIRSE Act 2007 as clearly stated in page B69 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 2 Vol. 105 Government Notice No. 16 dated 8th January, 2018. The Respondent maintained that, by virtue of Section 61 of the FIRSE Act and all other powers enabling the FIRS Board, with the approval of the Honorable Minister of Finance, the Income Tax (Country by Country Reporting) Regulations 2018 were made. That page B71 of the Official Gazette clearly states that the Regulations were made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 61 of the FIRS Act and all other powers enabling the FIRS Board with the approval of the Honorable Minister of Finance. The Respondent submitted further that, Regulation 1 of the Regulations lists out the laws and the Agreement the Regulations give effect to, including stated sections of the FIRS Act, CITA, and repealed PPTA, the Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Regulations 2012 and the Country-by-Country Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (CBC MCAA).
The Respondent submitted that, the Regulations speak particularly to and are made for assessing high level transfer pricing risks and other base erosion and profit shifting related risks, assessing the risk of non-compliance by members of the MNE Group with applicable transfer pricing rules and in addition, amount of revenue profit or loss before income tax, income tax paid, income tax accrued, stated capital, accumulated earnings, number of employees, tangible assets other than cash or cash equivalents with regard to each jurisdiction the MNE operates. The Respondent maintained that, a constituent entity of an MNE Group shall file with the service a Country-by-Country Report in conformity with the requirements with respect to the reporting accounting year of an MNE Group of which it is a constituent entity. That where a reporting entity fails to file the Country-by-Country Report to the service on or before the date specified, the service shall impose an administrative penalty.
The Respondent stated that, Regulation 13 of the Income Tax (Country-by-Country Reporting) Regulation 2018 empowers the Respondent to levy penalties on Constituent Entities of Multilateral Enterprises (MNE) Groups as defined under Regulation 16 of the Regulations for late and non-filing of the CBCR Notification. That the penalty for failure to file the Notifications is N5Million in the first instance and an additional N10,000 for every day in which the default continues. The Respondent maintained that, Regulation 6 of the Regulations requires Constituent Entities of in-scope MNE Groups resident for tax purposes in Nigeria to annually notify the Respondent whether they are the Ultimate Parent Entity or the Surrogate Parent Entity, no later than the last day of the Reporting Accounting Year of such MNE Group. That this Notification is among other functions, for the purpose of indicating to the Respondent the entity within the MNE Group designated to file the Country-by-Country Report.
The Respondent stated that, a Notification form was submitted by the Appellant on 7th January, 2022, however, a review of the Notification form showed that entries in the accounting period start and accounting period end fields were, 01/01/2020 and 31/12/2020 respectively. That CBCR is filed on actual year basis and if the Notification form was filed for 2021 financial year, it is late, the form should have been submitted latest on 31st December, 2021 being the due date. The Respondent maintained that, the due date for 2020 financial year is 31st December, 2020, however that the date of submission is 6th January, 2021 which warranted late filing penalty. That the same 2020 notification already submitted on 6th January, 2021 was again resubmitted on 30th November, 2021 for the same year 2020. The Respondent stated that, the form was supposed to be filed on or before 31st December, 2020. That the Appellant has no valid 2019 CBCR filing as the Notification filed at the Bar Beach MSTO indicates that it was for 2018, making it invalid. The Respondent maintained that, the Appellant submitted its 2018 CBCR Notification to Bar Beach on 31st December, 2018 and it was forwarded from the tax office to International Tax Department on 10th January, 2019, that the same document is presented before the Tribunal with the accounting period distorted to reflect 2019, contrary to the copy submitted at the tax office.
The Respondent submitted that, the Appellant filed its 2020 CBCR notification on 30th November, 2021 against the due date of 31st December, 2020. That the late filing penalty was accordingly imposed by the service and that the Appellant’s filing on 6th January, 2021 was deemed invalid by the service because the accounting period was distorted by the Appellant to claim that it was for the year, 2020. The Respondent stated further that, the Appellant created its profile on the e-TP platform on 21st November, 2021 as indicated on the print out, however the CBCR notification was submitted on 6th January, 2022, which was later than the due date of 31st December, 2021 and the late filing penalty was imposed accordingly.
The Respondent maintained that, Nigeria like every other country intending to participate in the exchange of CBC Reports in line with the requirement of the G20/OECD BEPS Project, had keyed into the implementation package and the domestication process to enable her receive CBC reports filed in other jurisdictions. That these are signing into the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (MAATM) to swiftly implement automatic exchange, ratified in May 2015 with entry into force in September 2015. That it signed the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (MCAA) in January, 2016, enacting the Model CBCR Legislation into law (the CBCR Regulation 2018 took effect from 8th January, 2018). The Respondent stated that, the Regulation is not a treaty but rather a regulation enforceable and made pursuant to the FIRSE Act. That the CBC MCAA is not in any way included in the list of treaties signed between Nigeria and any other country. The Respondent maintained that, the Regulations were clearly made pursuant to the FIRSE Act and as such, the Respondent is not in any way constrained or prevented from making necessary Regulations as empowered under the FIRSE Act and other tax laws and that the Income Tax Country-by-Country Reporting Regulations 2018 is not an international instrument.
The Respondent stated that, Section 92 of Companies Income Tax Act (CITA)2004 shows that there can be other Rules (or Regulations) made pursuant to the Act and the section specifies a penalty for cases where no other penalty has been specifically provided in either the Act or in the other Rules or Regulations. But that where the other Rule or Regulation has specifically provided a penalty, then that penalty is extant and remains in force to the subjugation of the general penalties provided in Section 92 of CITA. The Respondent maintained that, the CBCR Regulations provide specific penalties for CBCR offences therefore, the Respondent has the scope to cover the field with respect to penalties for CBC Reports and Notifications offences. The Respondent submitted that, the OECD Country-by-Country Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement and Income Tax (Country-by-Country Reporting) Regulation 2018 although similar in nature, are two different legal documents, one serving the purpose of a Memorandum of Understanding between allied Nations to conform to a standard reporting practice and the other, a domestic reporting guideline recognized under law for reporting Multilateral Enterprises Global activities, profits and taxes to which have been generally accepted by the Multinational Enterprises as the standard for reporting.
The Respondent stated that, a cursory look at the FIRSE Act 2007, Petroleum Profits Tax Act, Companies Income Tax Act 2004 would reveal that the penalty amounts stated therein will only apply where no other penalty is specifically provided under any Rule or Regulation made pursuant to CITA, that the penalties contained in 2018 CBCR Regulations are specifically provided for offences related to CBC filings.
The Respondent maintained that, by virtue of Section 3 of the FIRSE Act, there is established for the Service a Board to be known as the Federal Inland Service Board which shall have overall supervision of the Service as specified under the Act. That the Board shall meet whenever it is convened by the Chairman and if the Chairman is unable to attend a particular meeting, the members present at the meeting shall elect one of them to preside at the meeting. The Respondent stated further that, the quorum of any meeting of the Board shall consist of the Chairman and four other members, except that any quorum must include at least two members outside the Service. The Respondent maintained that, Section 61 of the FIRSE Act empowers the Board with the approval of the Minister, to make rules and regulations as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for giving full effect to the provisions of the Act and for the due administration of its provisions and may in particular make regulations. The Respondent submitted that, by Paragraph 14 of the Second Schedule, supplementary provisions relating to the Board says that on proceedings of the Board, the validity of any proceeding of the Board or its committees shall not be affected by, (a) any vacancy in the membership of the Board or its committees, (b) reason that a person not entitled to do so took part in the proceedings or, (c) any defect in the appointment of a member, that the decisions of the Board cannot be queried.
The Respondent therefore urged this Honorable Tribunal to uphold the administrative regulations of the Respondent and to set aside the Appeal filed by the Appellant as it is a deliberate attempt to obstruct the administration of the Respondent’s duties and obligations.
ANALYSIS
ISSUE ONE
Whether the CBC Regulation 2018 NOT made by the Board of the FIRS as mandatorily required by Section 61 of the FIRS Act is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and hence liable to be quashed by the Tribunal as well as the Notices of Administrative penalties served on the Appellant by the Respondent on the enforcement of same.
On the first issue as to whether the CBC Regulation 2018 made by the Federal Inland Revenue Service was properly made by a well and legally constituted Board of the Service considering the mandatory requirement of Section 61 of the FIRS ( E ) Act 2007. It is the considered position of this Honorable Tribunal that the said Section gives powers to the Board of FIRS to make subsidiary legislations by way of Regulations, rule forms and guidelines as are necessary or expedient in giving effect to the provisions of the Act. The said Section provides, thus;
“The Board may with the approval of the Minister, make rules and regulations as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for giving full effect to the provisions of this Act and for the due administration of its provisions and may in particular, make regulations prescribing the;
A) Forms for returns and other information required under the Act or any other enactment or law; and
B) Procedure for obtaining any information required under this Act or any other enactment or law.”
A careful consideration of the provisions of Section 61 as exposed above shows that the National Assembly has delegated its powers specifically to the Board of the Federal Inland Revenue Service to make these rules, guideline and regulations and to no any other person or authority. By necessary implications therefore, it is only the Board of FIRS and legally constituted and properly composed that can exercise the said powers donated by the National Assembly in Section 61. In the course of prosecuting this Appeal, the Appellant had presented concrete evidence before this Honourable Tribunal that during the period under consideration the Boards of all federal parastatals and agencies (including that of the Federal Inland Revenue Service) were dissolved and had not been reconstituted. This fact was not disproved or contradicted by the Respondent before this Honourable Tribunal. The non-existence of a Board during the said period under consideration would mean that a legal and legitimate exercise of the delegated powers under the provisions of Section 61 was not possible meaning that any step, process or action done in the name of the Board will be null and void. This is because the Apex Courts in Nigeria have consistently maintained that the exercise of delegated powers must always be in strict compliance with the enabling Act and that such powers can only be exercised by the specific person or body addressed, which powers cannot be delegated. The Supreme Court in the case of NNPC & ANOR v FAMFA OIL LIMITED (2012) LPELR-1812SC, maintained that subsidiary legislations must confirm with the principal law. If any provision of the subsidiary legislation are inconsistent with the provisions of an Act/Statute, the provisions of the Regulation are, to the extent of its consistencies, rendered void.
The Courts have gone further to state that such powers cannot even be delegated. In NNPC & Anor v Trinity Mills Insurance Brokers & Ors (2002) LPELR-7142 the Court of Appeal held that generally where a power is delegated to a person, it is exercisable by that person himself directly and personally and he lacks the legal power to re-delegate such power on the principle of delegatus non potest delegare. Again, in Yakasai v Nigerian Air Force (2002) 13 NWLR (Pt. 790), 294 the Supreme Court per Oguntade JSC said that “A delegate cannot re-delegate. Based on the latin maxim delegatus non potest delegare” . Similarly, in Bangboye v University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290 the Supreme Court held that generally a statutory desciplinary powers cannot be delegated. Also, in Nigerian Air Force v James (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 295 the Court affirmed that disciplinary powers cannot be delegated or sub-delegated, except as expressly authorised by the enabling statute. Same position was taken in Okoro v Delta Steel Co. Ltd (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 130) 87.
It is therefore the decision of this Honorable Tribunal that the purported Regulation on CBC of 2018 was not made by the Board of the Federal Inland Revenue Service that was legally constituted and properly composed, since it was dissolved and had not been reconstituted by the government at the time when the said regulation was made.
On the second issue as to whether the Respondent can administer the Income Tax Country by Country Reporting Regulation 2018 against the Appellant, it is the understanding of this Honorable Tribunal that the Federal Inland Revenue Service in exercise of the powers conferred on its Board by the provisions of Section 61 of the Federal Inland Revenue (Establishment) Act No. 13 of 2007, purport to make made the regulation to give effect to the provisions of the Country by Country Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (CbC MCAA) signed by Nigeria on the 27th Day of January, 2016 and ratified by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) on the 3rd Day of August, 2016. It must however clearly be stated that in Nigeria, international agreements, treaties or conventions do not automatically have the force of law after ratification, as there is a constitutional requirement for every international instrument to be domesticated before it can have the force of law. Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) stipulates that: "No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly." As a result of this constitutional provisions, the figurative hands of justice have been always held captive, as judges are usually reluctant to deliver decisions which directly conflict with the provisions of the constitution and would generally refrain from enforcing the provisions of international treaties which have not yet been domesticated. In Abacha v Fawehinmi, (2001) WRN vol. 51, pp. 165-166 the Nigerian Supreme Court held that:
"An International treaty entered into by the government of Nigeria does not become binding until enacted into law by the National Assembly. Before its enactment into law, it has no such force of law as to make it s provisions justiciable before the Nigerian Courts.”
The Court went on to state that:
“It is therefore manifest that no matter how beneficial to the country or the citizenry, an international treaty to which Nigeria has become a signatory may be, it remains unenforceable, if it is not enacted into the law of the country by the National Assembly."
Again, the Court of Appeal in the case of Tolani v Kwara State Judicial Service Commission & Os (2009) LPELR-8375 held that treaties which have not been domesticated cannot form part of Nigerian Laws. In the case of Mhwan v Minister of Health & Productivity & Ors (2005)17
The Respondent has argued in Paragraph 18 of their Final Written Address that the said Regulations were made pursuant to the FIRS ( E ) Act and that being the case, it is the position of this Honourable Tribunal that the said Regulation must be made within the limit, terms and conditions set by the principal legislation. This position of the Honorable Tribunal is guided by the decision in the case of Governor of Oyo State & Ors v Folayan (1995) LPELR-3179, where the Supreme Court held that a subsidiary legislation derives its validity and authority from the substantive law and has no capacity to extend such authority, is of the opinion that the provisions of the CBC Regulation 2018, which seeks to expand the provisions of Section 26 (3) (b) of the RIRS ( E ) Act, in relation the penalty is not in tandem with this position of the Supreme Court in the above cited case. Similarly, the Court of Appeal following this position of the Supreme Court in Omatseye v FRN (2017) LPELR-42719 held that a subsidiary legislation or enactment is one that was subsequently made or enacted under and pursuant to the power conferred by the principal legislation or enactment, it derives its force or efficacy from the principal legislation to which it is therefore secondary and complementary. This of the Honourable Tribunal is especially because the said Regulation imposed a penalty that is higher then what the Principal Act has imposed. See also the cases of NNPC V. FAMFA OIL LTD (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1328) 148 and CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE V. JOSEPH REZCALLAH & SONS LTD (1961) NRNLR 32.
In line with the above position, it is the decision of this Honourable Tribunal that the Notices of the Administrative Penalties served on the Appellants by the Respondent in the enforcement of the CBC Regulation 2018 are unconstitutional and void. It is therefore, hereby quashed by this Honourable Tribunal and the Respondent is hereby directed to raise fresh Notices of the Penalties based on the relevant provisions of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, 2007 and relevant laws.
DATED AT LAGOS THIS 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
PROFESSOR A. B. AHMED ESQ (Chairman)
P. A. OLAYEMI ESQ BABATUNDE E. SOBAMOWO ESQ
SAMUEL N. OHWERHOYE ESQ TERZUNGWE GBAKIGHIR ESQ Commissioner Commissioner