We thank God for Friday`s appeal court stay of execution that put on hold a possible madness that would have happen in River state
this week over state collection of VAT. Already Rivers State government have issued threat upon threat to banks and business entities
doing business in River State. He was ready for show-down. He sounds so battle-ready. We would have witness a repeat of what happen during Lock-down. Where River State was made a center of brutal drama.

This "stay of execution" have provided a little time for further reasoning and to probe this VAT collection by state critically. I have one question and I will appreciate Lawyers in the house to help me out with the answer.

1) My little understanding is that VAT is determine by Government ( percentage), added by companies and paid by consumers. With Federal Inland Revenue, I can understand this VAT are collected directly from the companies and shared as stipulated.
Now with states about to take over the collection of this VAT, I want to know why a consumer in Kano for instance will pay for a Tin of Milk and the associated VAT in Kano and the VAT will be remitted somewhere else. Sounds so odd to me.

We all agreed those economically hindered by ethical policies are not morally qualify for certain dividends. Simply put, Kano for instance does not permit the sale and consumption of alcohol and should not benefit from the accruing VAT. Thats fair enough. But what about malt .
Are they not qualify to share in VAT paid in Kano for the purchase of Malt. "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" am confuse here, who is Peter and who is Paul in this case?

Me think, every state should be ready to collect VAT paid on goods and services in their state, irrespective of whether the company is located there or not. I do not care about the attendant confusion and difficulties . Since push have turned shove. One cannot pay for detergent in Sokoto and the VAT remitted to another state and still be regarded as parasite.

Like I said earlier , this is my own little thinking and I stand to be corrected. I need a professional opinion on this.

Thank you.

I don't understand this write up, let me read again.
Cos it's like you are chastising wike for going against fg and still praising him for going against the fg

...you are confused

Oga don't confuse.
Peter is Peter and Paul is Paul.

This guy is going gaga. I beg hold am very well o

South is Peter while north is Paul.

Any other questions