S.A. AUTHORITY V. REGIONAL TAX BOARD
| Pages | 123-129 |
S.A. AUTHORITY V. REGIONAL TAX BOARD
123
S.A. AUTHORITY V. REGIONAL TAX BOARD
5
S.A. AUTHORITY
V
10 REGIONAL TAX BOARD
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
LEWIS,
J.S.C.
MADARIKAN,
J.S.C.
15
UDOMA,
J.S.C.
10th April, 1970
APPELLANT
RESPONDENTS
SUIT NO. SC 273/1969
Taxation - Income Tax - Levy on community - Whether by virtue of section 8
of the Income Tax Law, W.N. Tax could validly be levied on a community
20
-
Income Tax Management Act 1961 s.3(4).
ISSUE:
1. Whether by virtue of section 8 of the Income Tax Law, tax can validly be levied
on a community as a whole.
25
FACTS:
The plaintiffs claim against the defendants a declaration that the Holy Apostles
Community Aiyetoro are not liable to pay tax under the Income Tax Law of West-
ern Nigeria. This action was dismissed in the High Court and the Western State
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the dismissal of the action by
30
the High Court. On appeal to the Supreme Court.
HELD:
1.
No tax can be imposed on the subject without words in an act of parliament
clearly showing an intention 1:0 lay a burden on him. But when that intention is
sufficiently shown, it is vain to speculate on what would be the fairest and most
35
equitable mode of levying that tax.
2.
S.3(4) of the Income Tax Management Act does contemplate that when
exercising its undoubted constitutional right of imposing tax a state legislature
must so far as a community is concerned impose specifically that tax on the
basis of one of the three alternative provisions there set out. It was clear the
40
land had not in any way tied the imposition of tax on a community to one of the
alternatives and one could riot read into the law on entitlement to do so in any
of these three ways provided by section 4 of the Act when the law had not said
so.
3.
One must look at s.3(4) of the Act on the basis that it provides that a state
45
imposing a tax on a community is enabled to do so by one of the three ways
which it must stipulate in its legislation. The Western State did not by s.8 of the
law impose a tax on a community in one of the three ways permitted by s.3(4)
of the Act and therefore did not validly impose a community tax.
50
CASE REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:
1.
Coltness Iron Company v. Black
Chief
Williams,
for the Appellants.
Adio (Principal State Counsel Western State),
for the Respondent.
To continue reading
Request your trial