Governor wike should be have some patient on going to supreme Court because tomorrow is the hearing date of the both parties, though the supreme Court is the destination of this verdicts already

Skyehigher1:
Governor wike should be have some patient on going to supreme Court because tomorrow is the hearing date of the both parties, though the supreme Court is the destination of this verdicts already

Tomorrow is the hearing date for the application of Lagos State Government to join the suit.

fergie001:

You haven't opposed one thing I have said.

I will ask you two questions: Does the VAT Act supercede the Part II (concurrent legislative list) of the Second Schedule of the 1999 constitution?

I will reproduce Part II (concurrent legislative list) of the Second Schedule of the 1999 constitution

7. In the exercise of its powers to impose any tax or duty on -

(a) capital gains, incomes or profits or persons other than companies; and
(b) documents or transactions by way of stamp duties.

the National Assembly may, subject to such conditions as it may prescribe, provide that the collection of any such tax or duty or the administration of the law imposing it shall be carried out by the Government of a State or other authority of a State.

How is the FG now the delegating Authority? The FG has no authority except that empowered by the VAT Act which cannot supercede the law as enshrined in the Constitution.

That is the reason they are trying to smuggle it in to amend that part of the Constitution.

Items that the FG can collect taxes on are well enumerated in Part 1 of the Schedule, there was no VAT whatsoever and Part II is between the State and Federal Legislatures. The fact that State legislatures don't act doesn't mean it is right.

The 1999 Constitution is the grundnorm and any part of a law that is out of tune with it must wither as a “dead branch of a living tree.”

No way, I do not support the FIRS' continuance of collecting VAT......I don't.

The FHC by virtue of the judgement invalidated the VAT Act passed by the National Assembly for been in conflict with the Constitution.



The judgement is a Declaratory one and subsists.

You are missing the point.as far as it is on concurrent list,the fg has a bigger say than the states....

Again,the taxable items captured on part seven does not include vat or even sales tax therefore it is outside constitutional cover...
Finally,that part says the national assembly will empower the state to collect taxes listed in that section 7 which does not include vat....it also gives nass power to delegate the power of collection to any authority it likes...moreover,nass must delegate and it has not delegated that power to the state but firs so firs is right....

The only law backing vat as it stands is the vat act...nullification by the fhc is temporary.it will get to the apex court...


Again,it is better firs continue collecting vat except you dont want the best for nigeria...


[b]The Federal High Court (FHC or “the Court”) Port Harcourt Division, recently delivered judgement in the case between the Attorney General for Rivers State (AGRS or “the Plaintiff”) and Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS or “1st Defendant”) & Attorney General of the Federation (AGF or “2nd Defendant”) collectively referred to as (the Defendants), stating that the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) lacks the power to impose and collect taxes that are not listed under Items 58 and 59 of Part I of the Second Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) (“the Constitution”). Consequently, taxes such as Value Added Tax (VAT), Withholding Tax (WHT), Tertiary Education Tax (TET), the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) Levy, etc., which are not specifically listed under the said Items are outside of the jurisdiction of the FGN.

The Court also noted that the provisions of Item 7(a) and (b) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Constitution do not extend the legislative competence of the National Assembly beyond capital gains, incomes or profits of persons other than companies, and documents or transactions by way of stamp duties. Therefore, the National Assembly lacks the power to enact any law to impose any form of sales tax, including VAT, and any other tax outside of those specifically mentioned in Item 7(a) and (b) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Constitution.

Finally, the Court noted that the Taxes and Levies (Approved List of Collection) Act (TLA) is unconstitutional, hence, any tax or levy provided for in the Act is also unconstitutional, null and void, except such tax or levy is provided for in the Constitution or any other law made validly by a competent legislature[/b].


From the bolded,the court indirectly agreed that vat is not part of items in section 7...again,the court contradicted in the last paragraph.if the nass is not competent,which legislature is competent?

AmazingELixir:




You're in for another rude awakening....this time around you might get hospitalised for nervous breakdown.

How? Rivers pdp is divided,wike is zoning power to ikwerre so how will pdp win? Are you ok at all? Stop taking elixir

ourema:
Apart from this current case the Rivers State governor performance is below that of his predecessor Amaechi.

Employment his rating is below the previous government,
Workers promotion and Pensioner gratuity is very poor

una don start again. Can please, remind me of the name Osinbajo called wike some time ago.

ourema:
Apart from this current case the Rivers State governor performance is below that of his predecessor Amaechi.

Employment his rating is below the previous government,
Workers promotion and Pensioner gratuity is very poor

.Ask yourself if this is how Nigeria was that time Ameachi was Governor .Buhari has damage Naija beyond repair

For your mind you think this is because of party affiliation?
We are talking about an a time lazy governors have to sit up, you're here mentioning pdp.

Sirjamo:
This is not Onoghen's Supreme Court that always favour the Poverty Development Party.

Rushing to Supreme Court when the matter is still pending before the appeal Court is no longer allowed in this era of Tanko Mohammed.


Wike is looking for his retirement package in form of value added tax. He just realized that VAT exists, after almost seven years in office.

Come out darkness. Forward ever, backward never.

ourema:
Apart from this current case the Rivers State governor performance is below that of his predecessor Amaechi.

Employment his rating is below the previous government,
Workers promotion and Pensioner gratuity is very poor

The battle for fiscal federalism is going to be long and tortuous because of so many vested interests in the polity.



Any seeming attempt at altering the present system that vests fiscal powers on the central government would be fiercely resisted by those who are benefiting from the lopsidedness in the sharing of VAT.



Governor Wike has already seen through the shenanigan of the Court of Appeal's order of maintaining the status quo.



He has therefore decided to head to the Supreme Court to quash that pronouncement.




"The harder the battle, the sweeter the victory" - Robert (Bob) Marley

garfield1:


Wike is overreaching himself.by asking for a new appeal panel,he will definitely lose the case.he must have tried bribing them and failed

Are you talking as a legal authority or as an slowpoke?

That's y he needs VAT to pay pensions and step up his performance,

ourema:
Apart from this current case the Rivers State governor performance is below that of his predecessor Amaechi.

Employment his rating is below the previous government,
Workers promotion and Pensioner gratuity is very poor

ourema:
UPDATED Rivers govt drags FG to Supreme Court over VAT

…seeks disbandment of A’Court panel that ordered maintenance of status quo



https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/09/breaking-rivers-govt-drags-fg-to-supreme-court-over-vat-revenue/

Wike the strong man, always giving Buhari problem

Confirmedzombie:
As a senior lawyer, this is an interlocutory appeal and will be entertained by the supreme court.

I think Wike and Rivers state are seeking the supreme court to give a clearer interpretations of the MAINTAIN A STATUS QUO.

In my opinion I think the supreme court might not favour wike and Rivers state as it lacks the power to vacate the ORDER of the Appeal court.

Wike would have just waited for the Appeal court judgement.

However, let the supreme court interpret better.

From your opinion at the end of your writeup, you're a confused person. You're incompetent.

hotseat:
The battle for fiscal federalism is going to be long and tortuous because of so many vested interests in the polity.



Any seeming attempt at altering the present system that vests fiscal powers on the central government would be fiercely resisted by those who are benefiting from the lopsidedness in the sharing of VAT.



Governor Wike has already seen through the shenanigan of the Court of Appeal's order of maintaining the status quo.



He has therefore decided to head to the Supreme Court to quash that pronouncement.




"The harder the battle, the sweeter the victory" - Robert (Bob) Marley

The present system is better.how can 5 states be benefitting 87% of vat

garfield1:
You are missing the point.as far as it is on concurrent list,the FG has a bigger say than the states....

Again,the taxable items captured on part seven does not include vat or even sales tax therefore it is outside constitutional cover...

Taxes are specifically mentioned under items 58 and 59 of the exclusive legislative lists. This implies that the none mention of VAT in the exclusive or concurrent list, amounts to total exclusion from the powers of the Federal Government.

As a result, it ASSUMABLY becomes a residual matter that only the states can legislate upon.

There is a principle in law that where the Sections of a Constitution are unambiguous, they should be given their ordinary meaning, without additions or inferences.

There was no mention of VAT in the lists.

Finally,that part says the National Assembly may empower the state to collect taxes listed in that section 7 which does not include vat....it also gives nass power to delegate the power of collection to any authority it likes...moreover,nass must delegate and it has not delegated that power to the state but firs so firs is right....

7(a) and (b) is an addendum to Items 58 & 59 of the Exclusive List. 58 & 59 says collect stamp duties, capital gains etc....so 7(a) & (b) is simply saying you can delegate to States. VAT wasn't mentioned in either.

The only law backing vat as it stands is the vat act...nullification by the fhc is temporary.it will get to the apex court...

The Supreme Court will help settle it.

However, this isn't the first time the VAT Act has been termed unconstitutional. The FHC in Port Harcourt invalidated the VAT Act in 2020, In Emmanuel Chukwuka Ukala v FIRS.

Again in 2019, the FHC Lagos in Hotel Owners & Managers Association of Lagos v. FIRS, also did same.

Again,it is better FIRS continues collecting vat except you dont want the best for Nigeria

The people who don't want the best for Nigeria are those who are robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is better so that we will know whether some States (like mine) might join Rivers since they are lazy.

My advice: Let the FG settle out-of-court. Design a suitable platform that should settle States to enable them at least be their brothers keepers and not the FIRS trying to bully everyone.

Fuckyoumod:
What's the implication of taking this case to the supreme court?

Secondly, especially when the case is still at the court of Appeal?

Learned Nigerians please enlighten us.

we had been enlightened already through the topic, even While, and his Wife are both learned counsels,

make we see wetin that Sharia judge go talk

Wicked set of people... they will destroy beers in Kano, come to Onitsha and oshodi to come and drag vat generated from beer sold in those area.... Muslims are hypocritical stupid

When northerners did their sharia and started collecting their gold money for themselves,no one challenged them.Now we want resource control and no open grazing they are going to court.

DubaiLandLord1:
The Appeal Court ask the Rivers State Govt. And FIRS to maintain status quo, that means Rivers can keep on collecting VATs till the Appeal Court pass a judgement.

I am a Rivers man and a PH based Lawyer. The Rivers State Govt has never collected VAT. The order of the Court of Appeal was that the status quo be maintained, and the court clearly stated that the parties should not give effect to the judgment of the lower court pending the determination of the appeal before the appeal court. So the status quo is for the FIRS to keep levying and collecting VAT in the mean time.

garfield1:



That is not true sir.the vat act specifically empowers the firs to collect vat.perhaps,you should go through the vat act.even rivers is not questioning this.what they are saying is that the fg lacks powers to collect taxes that are not on item 58 and 59 of the constitution like sales tax,withholding tax,tertiary education tax,nitda,tax...but the same constitution never empowered the states to collect this same taxes.now,an act of the national assembly called the vat act has empowered the fg to collect vat.the vat laws of lagos and rivers cannot supersede the vat act....
Some others argue that vat is in the concurrent list and in the concurrent list,same fg has an advantage in conflicting items...
Even if we go by your claims that states collect on behalf of the fg,it means the fg has the deciding authority and can decide to delegate anyone other than states' to collect it.

This case is a delicate case.for the sake of peace,let firs continue collecting vat...worst case scenario,the share of states like lagos,rivers,kaduna,fct will increase

Don't talk like a lawyer when you're not. Your piece is completely empty. Quote referenced laws properly and not this trash.

garfield1:


How? Rivers pdp is divided,wike is zoning power to ikwerre so how will pdp win? Are you ok at all? Stop taking elixir

APC that is in tatters in Rivers state saying PDP is divided .....what a joke you're Garfield.

And if I must ask when and where did you hear about any zoning is Rivers PDP, certainly not when Wike had publicly opposed and fought against godfatherism in politics.

Abeg go find yourself another lie to peddle afteral that's all you're good at.

ourema:
Apart from this current case the Rivers State governor performance is below that of his predecessor Amaechi.

Employment his rating is below the previous government,
Workers promotion and Pensioner gratuity is very poor

Government don't employ people rather they create way for high employment via good policies

Gavel:


I am a Rivers man and a PH based Lawyer. The Rivers State Govt has never collected VAT. The order of the Court of Appeal was that the status quo be maintained, and the court clearly stated that the parties should not give effect to the judgment of the lower court pending the determination of the appeal before the appeal court. So the status quo is for the FIRS to keep levying and collecting VAT in the mean time.

Prove to this forum in documents that you are a Rivers man or Shut the fúck up, you alien.

fergie001:

Taxes are specifically mentioned under items 58 and 59 of the exclusive legislative lists. This implies that the none mention of VAT in the exclusive or concurrent list, amounts to total exclusion from the powers of the Federal Government.

As a result, it ASSUMABLY becomes a residual matter that only the states can legislate upon.

There is a principle in law that where the Sections of a Constitution are unambiguous, they should be given their ordinary meaning, without additions or inferences.

There was no mention of VAT in the lists.


7(a) and (b) is an addendum to Items 58 & 59 of the Exclusive List. 58 & 59 says collect stamp duties, capital gains etc....so 7(a) & (b) is simply saying you can delegate to States. VAT wasn't mentioned in either.


The Supreme Court will help settle it.

However, this isn't the first time the VAT Act has been termed unconstitutional. The FHC in Port Harcourt invalidated the VAT Act in 2020, In Emmanuel Chukwuka Ukala v FIRS.

Again in 2019, the FHC Lagos in Hotel Owners & Managers Association of Lagos v. FIRS, also did same.


The people who don't want the best for Nigeria are those who are robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is better so that we will know whether some States (like mine) might join Rivers since they are lazy.

My advice: Let the FG settle out-of-court. Design a suitable platform that should settle States to enable them at least be their brothers keepers and not the FIRS trying to bully everyone.

Since VAT was not mentioned in the exclusive or concurrent list,you cannot assume that it is in the residual list.the law leaves no room for assumptions.it is not in any list.rivers state indirectly accepted this that is why they canvassed that it is in the concurrent list but legally under the purview of states which the court stylishly disallowed...

Since vat is not in the constitution,the next law to check are subsidiary laws like nass acts and we have the vat act therefore,it is legal.we also have the TLA.the court cannot nullify the vat act and then legalize that of states when it clearly agreed that it is not in the constitution.it is like nullifying a portion of the electoral act and legalizing a state law similar to it.this is ridiculous and perverse....


At the fhc,rivers canvassed that states are empowered to collect vat on items 58 and 59..this is very narrow and limited.on the other hand,firs stated that a combined reading of sections 4(1),4a,315,318 and a community reading of items 62,67 and 68 of the second schedule,it is empowered to collect vat and other items provided by TLA...
It also argued that where a conflict exists between a schedule and a section of an enactment,the section prevails.the TLA though enacted by the military is legal and effective by virtue of section 315 of the constitution...
An objective review of both pleadings shows that that of firs is superior and all encompassing and when it comes to constitutional matters,the apex courts usually undertake a community and a combined reading.it even goes beyond the law at times to resolve such complicated matters by using foreign laws,case studies,common sense,security matters etc...
A cursory look at the vat act shows that it is fair,states takes the largest share and fg the smallest.the new state acts states that states will take all forgetting that vat is not just a product of the states.upholding the rivers position is upholding 4 states and fct to the exclusion of 32 others...in my own view,I don't see how the firs will lose this except vat is clearly mentioned in residual list...

Finally,I also agree that all parties must settle out of court...let the share of the largest vat contributors increase or both firs and state IRS should agree on areas of collection...allowing states to totally collect vat is throwing discretion to the winds... It is like saying oil producing states should collect oil revenue...no body is robbing peter..every state has something they contribute and shares to other states.no state is totally self self sufficient.

DubaiLandLord1:
The Appeal Court ask the Rivers State Govt. And FIRS to maintain status quo, that means Rivers can keep on collecting VATs till the Appeal Court pass a judgement.

The status quo to maintain here is the initial one where the FIRS are collecting the VAT. that's what the appellate court says here.

There was a judgement of Kuala Vs FIRS last year.

In that judgement, FIRS was found to have no grounds to collect VAT.

It was based on that judgement that the Rivers State Government took the FIRS to court and passed a VAT law.

Sirjamo:
This is not Onoghen's Supreme Court that always favour the Poverty Development Party.

Rushing to Supreme Court when the matter is still pending before the appeal Court is no longer allowed in this era of Tanko Mohammed.


Wike is looking for his retirement package in form of value added tax. He just realized that VAT exists, after almost seven years in office.

DubaiLandLord1:
The Appeal Court ask the Rivers State Govt. And FIRS to maintain status quo, that means Rivers can keep on collecting VATs till the Appeal Court pass a judgement.

Are you sure you are enlightened at all? It means what's on ground should continue to play out.

Kaybenny:


So?

Why didn't you type in inslam.
Ewu

I didn't type in Islam, because is only this kind type u can understand, and want u to understand what I means through the language that u can understand. Thank god Islam also get it own pattern of writing.

DubaiLandLord1:
The Appeal Court ask the Rivers State Govt. And FIRS to maintain status quo, that means Rivers can keep on collecting VATs till the Appeal Court pass a judgement.

If that was the case why do you think Rivers state went to the Supreme court to appeal it?

Obviously, your deduction is wrong

ourema:
Apart from this current case the Rivers State governor performance is below that of his predecessor Amaechi.

Employment his rating is below the previous government,
Workers promotion and Pensioner gratuity is very poor



If you are not from Rivers State and a Civil Servant don't mention me. I am from Rivers State and a civil servant and above all non partisan

You are just bitter. Have u ever witnessed the tremendous development in Portharcourt like this before? Wike is truly trying to make Portharcourt the Garden City it were before. See as everywhere clean. Dey here dey talk wetin nor clear. Pained!

Good

Praxis758:




Lol........

You're not even scare that DSS can arrest you for this post.

Those demanding restructuring are being tagged criminals by Buhari while the hardened criminals in the north are being massaged.

Thanks bro

We will tell the stories of how we overcame this administration.