Tomorrow, 3rd June 2026, the Supreme Court of Ghana is expected to deliver the judgment in the Seadrill v Commissioner-General appeal. As you may be aware, this case is important as it clarifies the rules on the legal effect of correspondence between the taxpayer and the tax authority after a response has been given to an objection.Â
Barring any last minute changes, the judgment will be delivered tomorrow. We can confirm that this appeal is listed on the Supreme Court cause list. For those interested, you can see Seadrill’s arguments to the Supreme Court here that of the GRA here. We have used AI to compare the arguments as shown below:
| Â | Core Dispute Issue | Appellant’s Position (Seadrill) | Respondent’s Position (GRA) |
| 1 |
The Legal Status of the Dec 1, 2020 Revised Letter |
It is a fresh “Tax Decision.” Because the letter reduced the tax liability from $22.7M to $17.9M, it represents an adjusted tax assessment under Sec. 37 & 39, which naturally triggers a fresh right to object under Sec. 42(1). |
It is an “Objection Decision.” The letter was merely an amendment to the primary objection decision. Sec. 41(1)(d) explicitly states that a “tax decision” excludes an objection decision under Section 43, making it un-objectable. |
| 2 | The Statutory Definition of a “Tax Decision” under Sec. 42(9) | Amendments update the status. Section 42(9) defines a tax decision as the decision objected to as may have been amended. Therefore, any subsequent amendment creates a revised tax decision that can be disputed. |
An amendment does not reset the category. The Court of Appeal correctly held that amending an objection decision does not convert it back into an original tax decision. Seadrill’s interpretation would create an infinite loop of administrative delays. |
| 3 |
The Legality of the Dec 30, 2020 “Third Objection” |
It is a valid statutory objection. Since it was prompted by a modified financial assessment (Dec 1, 2020), it satisfies the administrative prerequisites for a dispute. |
It is invalid as a statutory objection. It was merely an informal request for reconsideration or an administrative review based on new data , as it lacked the key structural requirements of a tax objection. |
| 4 |
The 30% Dispute Deposit Obligation |
The initial deposit satisfies the rule. Paying the lump sum ($12.5M) is a one-time condition precedent to clear the audit gateway under Sec. 42(5). No additional deposits are required for internal, down-stream revisions. |
Deposits are strictly mandatory for each objection. If the letters were actual objections, Sec. 42(5) mandates a fresh 30% deposit for the new tax in dispute. No deposit means the objection cannot legally be entertained. |
| 5 |
The Status of the October 8, 2021 Final Letter |
It is the definitive Objection Decision. The GRA itself explicitly noted in this letter that it had evaluated Seadrill’s “objection application dated 30th December,” admitting its statutory nature. |
It is an administrative refusal to reopen the case. The GRA was simply affirming the final position it locked in on December 1, 2020. A repetitive request for reconsideration cannot create a new statutory appeal window. |
| 6 | The Statutory Limitation Window for Court Appeal |
The appeal was filed on time. Because the final administrative decision refusing the objection was issued on Oct 8, 2021 , the High Court appeal filed on Nov 8, 2021, fell squarely within the 30-day statutory window. |
The appeal was filed almost a year late. The legal clock started running on December 1, 2020, when the final adjusted objection decision was served. Seadrill’s 30-day window under Sec. 44 expired in late December 2020. |
To recap the dispute, see this page.
