The Rivers State government has proceeded to the Supreme Court to challenge the preliminary judgement of the Court of Appeal on the suit over the Value Added Tax (VAT) controversy between the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) and the Rivers State government. The state government is challenging the appeal court judgement last Friday which ordered all parties in the suit to maintain the status quo.
Ledad counsel to the Rivers State government, Emmanuel Ukala, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), and three other senior lawyers in a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, listed 10 grounds of appeal dated September 13, notifying the Supreme Court that the state was dissatisfied with the decision of the appeal court last Friday directing all parties to maintain status quo on the VAT case.
The Attorney-General of Rivers State was listed as the appellant while the FIRS and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) were listed as respondents.
The Rivers State government argued that the implication of the ruling of the appeal court was that parties were restored to their positions before a Federal High Court in Port Harcourt granted the Rivers State government the right to collect VAT, instead of the FIRS on August 9.
Rivers State argued, in one of the appeals, that the appeal court erred in law when it relied on the provisions of Section 6(6) of the Constitution and its inherent jurisdiction to found its decision to make an order to maintain status quo in the matter, pending the determination of an appeal filed by FIRS.
The state government further argued that the appeal court in relying on its inherent jurisdiction to make the order failed to appreciate that its inherent jurisdiction cannot be applied in contravention of statutory provisions.
The state, therefore, sought relief from the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the appeal court which they complained about, and dismiss the oral application for interim injection made by the FIRS.
The state further sought the supreme court to order that the substantive appeal by the FIRS and all other processes be heard and determined by a new panel of the Court of Appeal.