Court watch: Court of Appeal rules in favour of Agility and orders refund of excess VAT

This morning, the 29th of January, 2026, the Court of Appeal delivered the ruling in the The Republic v The Commissioner-General of the Ghana Revenue Authority; Ex parte: Agility Distribution Parks Ghana Limited matter. The decision of the Court was that the appeal succeeds. This decision was unanimous with the president of the panel, Justice Eric Kyei Baffour, authoring the lead opinion while Justice Yaw Kodie Oppong wrote a concurring opinion.

Orders of the Court

The court proceeded to make these three orders:

1. An order directed at the Commissioner-General of the respondent institution to pay to the appellant the sum of GHS200,112.45 as excess income tax under section 68 of the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915)

2. The interest exigible in vigore legis and specifically under section 68(3) shall be complied with, as the said sum was not paid within the 90-day period stated by the law.

3. We further order the Commissioner-General to pay the sum of GHS12,197,887.61 being excess payment of VAT to be refunded to the appellant under section 50(3)-(9) of the Value Added Tax Act, 2013 (Act 870).

The President of the panel advised counsel for the GRA to appeal if they are dissatisfied. There were no orders relating to costs. The Appellant prayed for costs of GHS50,000, but the Court refused on account of the GRA being a public body. The full ruling is expected to be ready next week.

Basis of the ruling

The Court identified that the decision turns on whether Act 870 or Act 915 applies to the amount. Further, which of the rules of interpretation, either the rule that specific law overrides general law or the rule that a later law impliedly repeals an earlier law should apply.

The court noted that the CG grounded his position on sections 50(1) and (2) of Act 870. However, sections 50(3)-(9) were ignored by the CG in the Court’s view. The Court concluded that even under the VAT Act, there is enough justification for the excess VAT payment to have been refunded. Further, section 68 of Act 915 is there to complement Act 870. This position was arrived at using the principle of harmonious interpretation. That is, a court should not be quick to say a law has repealed another and that if the two laws can be read together, that should be done. It is only when the two cannot be read together that the rules of interpretation above can be used.

What is the dispute about?

The High Court judgment can be found here. In summary, section 50(1)(a) of Act 870 says

Where the amount of input tax which is deductible exceeds the amount of output tax due in respect of the tax period, the excess amount shall be credited by the Commissioner- General to the taxable person

The Appellant, did not want the CG to credit them. They wanted a refund of their excess input VAT. At the High Court, the appellant did not rely on the Act 870 to demand the refund. They argued that Act 915, which is a general law, allowed for a person to apply for refund of excess tax paid. Their argument was that whatever was said in Act 870 about carrying forward credits should no longer apply because Act 915 has now come to provide for refund without including any exception for VAT.

Possible ground for the GRA to attack this ruling

Though the full ruling is not out, based on what was delivered in court, we can provide some limited comments. The entire ruling of the Court of Appeal hinges on sections 50(3)-(9) of Act 870. The Court uses these provisions to conclude that indeed, a taxpayer is entitled to refund even under Act 870. So, we must look at these provisions. In fact, the relevant provision is section 50(3) since the other provisions apply if this one is triggered. It says

… where the amount of tax paid by a person, other than in the circumstances specified in subsections (1) and (2) , was in excess of the amount properly subject to tax under this Act, the amount of the excess shall be treated in the manner provided for under subsection (5) to (9). 

Subsections (5)-(9) only apply if the condition underlined above is triggered. That condition is that the overpayment should not relate to matters specified in subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (1) is what is stated above, which provides that the excess input VAT should be credited. That means if the excess tax is solely as a result of excess input VAT, subsections (3)-(9) cannot apply. Perhaps the full ruling will provide clarity.

What now?

From the way that counsel for the GRA was visibly shaking his head in disagreement as the summary of the ruling was being delivered, it is very likely that this decision will be appealed. This decision is very significant because it changes how excess input VAT amounts are currently handled. Based on this decision, instead of carrying forward excess input VAT credit, a taxpayer may choose to apply for a refund of the excess input VAT. Despite this, it is highly likely that if this ends up before the Supreme Court and the right arguments are presented on the true meaning of sections 50(3)-(9), this decision will change. We will share any update in due course.

For more summaries of Ghanaian tax judgments, visit this page.