CaseLaw
Ukpong V. CFED (2006) CLR 12(b) (SC)
Judgement delivered on December 15th 2006
Brief
Facts
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division, in appeal No. CA/PH/267/97 delivered on 13th January 2006 in which the Court allowed the appeal of the present Respondents.
The Appellants as employees of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited Eket, Akwa Ibom State appealed against the imposition on 12/8/96 of additional taxes on them. Earlier on the Akwa [born State Military Government forwarded a debit advice to the employees of the Appellants in the sum of N117,806,877.5 as under collection of PAYE tax for 1989 - 1994 due from the employees (Appellants). In reaction Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited, hereinafter called Mobil) wrote to the Government on 21 8/1996 arguing that it had no statutory duty to assess or determine the tax payable by its employees not being the taxing authority and that it was not liable for any tax underpayment in amounts it correctly deducted in accordance with official tax card duly prepared, endorsed and stamped by the Tax Authority and finally suggested that the Government should notify the employees directly. In compliance with the suggestion, the Government issued various demand notices to the 292 employees for additional taxes. The notices were issued by the Akwa Ibom State Commissioner for Finance and not the Commissioner for Internal Revenue a.k.a Chairman Board of Internal Revenue, who the Appellants contend has the statutory responsibility to impose taxes.
Following the imposition of the additional taxes, the employees/Appellants appealed against same to the Akwa Ibom State High Court, Uyo contending inter alia, that "the demand notices on liability for outstanding PAYE served on the Appellants are a nullity in that the same are signed by the State Commissioner for Finance and Economic Development, whereas the person authorized by law to administer the finance law and to be responsible for assessment is the Commissioner for Internal Revenue.
The appeal was allowed by the High Court but the Court of Appeal overruled that decision resulting in the present appeal before this Court. It is very important to note that the Appellants did raise a preliminary objection to the competence of the appeal then pending before the Court of Appeal which objection was overruled in the judgment of that Court.