In light of the writ filed by Banks DIH Limited against the Guyana Revenue Authority, the tax entity said that it is fully prepared to vigorously contest this matter and looks forward to a thorough ventilation of the issues in a court of law.
The revenue authority has been named as the second defendant in the case.
In a statement issued by the GRA yesterday, it was indicated that Commissioner-General of the Guyana Revenue Authority, Godfrey Statia, has indicated that the writ was served on December 16, 2016.
According to GRA, the company is seeking declarations that Consumption Tax paid for periods 2001 to 2006 were paid under a mistake of law and alternatively seeks an Order for repayment by the Government of Guyana of the said taxes. It was noted by GRA that the company has not filed its statement of claim.
“A Statement of Claim is a written statement by the plaintiff, in which he/she must state their case: the facts on which they intend to rely upon and the relief they seek, to the defendant and for the public record, for which they seek a civil trial and judicial determination.”
Banks DIH has approached the High Court to declare that it had paid $12.8B in consumption taxes for the aforementioned period under a mistake in law premised on a Court of Appeal decision handed down on July 31, 2008. This case was a motion filed by Demerara Distillers Limited against the revenue authority.
In April 2016, DDL announced that it had come to an amicable settlement with the GRA regarding a longstanding dispute over Consumption Tax that began in 2002.
The settlement followed an extended legal battle between DDL and GRA arising out of the consumption Tax assessment levied against DDL by then Commissioner-General Khurshid Sattaur in January 2009 in the sum of $5,392,020,753.
DDL and GRA were able to recommence negotiations for a resolution of the methodology for a calculation of Consumption Tax (and its successor, Excise Tax), and were able to arrive at consensus to fully and finally settle all claims by the GRA and liability by DDL for both Consumption and Excise tax up to March 9, 2016 in the sum of $1,500,000,000.
This sum was payable over 12 months. DDL, in good faith, effected the payment of $100,000,000 in compliance with the settlement terms.
On several occasions Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo had argued vehemently about the effect such a settlement would have as it relates to other beverage companies would want to jump on the bandwagon and make similar claims. Jagdeo had calculated that the treasury could suffer a $60B reduction to facilitate payment of similar actions.
At a press conference held by Jagdeo on Monday, he said, “Once you make that settlement you are going to basically trigger a request for refund and it has happened now, so Banks DIH is claiming $28 billion of refund only for the period 2001 to 2006. When we come to see what happened between 2006 to 2016 there could very well be another claim over maybe $30 billion more, so that’s why I have always argued that a government decision that we don’t know who made so far.”
Lawyers for Banks DIH Rex McKay, Claude Denbow, Neil Boston and Donna Denbow have asked that an Order for repayment by the government of the said money to be paid over to the company after a re-assessment is done by the GRA.
Jul 09, 2020…. Despite some early set backs By Sean Devers Arguable the best U-17 cricketer in the Ancient County of Berbice, Jonathon Rampersaud is a genuine all-rounder who bats left-handed and is a crafty...
Jul 09, 2020
Jul 08, 2020
Jul 07, 2020
Jul 07, 2020
Jul 07, 2020
It was obvious, even to a moron, the APNU and AFC were trying to intimidate the EU Ambassador, American Ambassador, Canadian... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders There have been unhelpful and destructive attacks by leading members and zealous supporters of the... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]