Friday 25 September 2015

LOCUS CLASSICUS


A LEGAL DISCUSS OF THE (A.G OGUN STATE V. ALHAJA AYINKE ABERUAGBA (1985) 1 NWLR PG. 395) BRINGING OUT THE THREE MAIN ISSUES AT THE SUPREME COURT, THE DECISION OF THE COURT ON THE ISSUES AND A BRIEF COMMENT ON THEM[1].
According to the court in Whitney v. I. R.C[2] there are three stages in the impo


sition of tax, sales tax in this connection. There is the declaration of liability i.e the enabling statute will determine what persons in respect of what property are liable. The second is the assessment stage, which particularize the exact amount which a person liable has to pay, and lastly is the method of collection and or recovery, if the person taxed does not voluntarily pay. It is by considering each of the above stages that we will know whether a particular state sales tax law is legal or otherwise
The Supreme Court in the Aberuagba’s case was invited to decide the validity or otherwise of the 1982 Sales Tax Law of Ogun State, which provided in Section 3(1) as follows:
            “A tax to be known as sales tax shall be charged in accordance with the provisions of this law on all taxable products brought into the state and on the supply of goods and services in any inn not exempted from the requirement of registration under this law at the rate specified opposite each class of goods or services in the First Schedule to this law”
Part 1 of the First Schedule provides:
            “Petrol………………..1 kobo per litre
             Diesel Oil……………1 kobo per litre
             Petroleum products other than petrol and diesel oil……………1 kobo per litre”
By originating summons, the plaintiffs/ appellant who were wholesale purchasers of beer in Ogun State instituted for themselves and on behalf of wholesale purchasers of beer in the state claiming an declaration that the Sales tax Law is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria on legislative taxing powers of the Federal and State government respectively.
The Learned Chief Judge Craig C.J referred the matter to the Court of Appeal stating that since the state tax law affects other wholesalers of tobacco paint and alcoholic spirits, it is presumable that these other classes of people might contemplate taking actions against the state government thereby it becomes a matter of urgent public importance not only to all the State House of Assembly who has adopted this law, but to the Nigerian business concern in general that a proper adjudication be made on whether or not the sales tax law is valid and constitutional.
The appellants dissatisfied with the judgment of the appellate court brought the matter before the Supreme Court who based on the important constitutional issues raised invited all the Attorney General in the federation as amicus curiae.
A.    Whether the omission to include item 38 of the exclusive legislative list of the 1960 & 1963 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria into the 1979 Constitution shows an intention to regard sale tax law as a residual subject OR whether it implies that the power to legislate on all Fiscal Subject have been vested in the Federal Government in relation to Item 61.
Item 38 of the Exclusive Legislative List of the 1960 and the 1963 Constitution confers a general sale or purchase tax upon the Federal Government by specifically granted parliament a general power over taxes on amounts paid or payable on the sale or purchase of commodities with certain exceptions. It provides thus:
“Taxes on amounts paid or payable on the sale or purchase of commodities except-
(a)    produce,
(b)   Hides and skins
(c)    Motor Spirit
(d)   Diesel oil sold or purchased for use in road vehicles
(e)    diesel oil sold or purchased for other than industrial purpose”
Having omitted item 38 in the provision of the exclusive legislative list of the 1979 Constitution, it was argued by the counsel to defendant (Ogun State) that this makes it a residual matter in which the state can legislate on i.e, the state now has power to make tax law on sales and purchase of commodities without regards to the exceptions stated therein however.
Notwithstanding the above, the Court of Appeal held the argument not to hold water by stating that although Item 38 has been omitted, the subject matter of sales tax still fits into Item 15, item 58 and most certainly, item 61 of the exclusive legislative list of the 1979 Constitution which has the following provisions:
            Item 15 - Customs and excise duties
Item 58 – Taxation of incomes, profits and capital gains, except as otherwise prescribed by the constitution.
Item 61- Trade and commerce, and in particular
(a)    trade and commerce between Nigeria and other countries including importsof commodities into and export of commodities from  Nigeria, and trade and commerce between the states;          
(b)   establishment of a purchasing authority with power to acquire for export or sale in world markets such agricultural produce as may be designated by the National Assembly
(c)    inspection of produce to  be exported from Nigeria and the enforcement of grades and standards of quality in respect of produce so inspected
(d)   establishment of a body to prescribe and enforce standards of goods and commodities offered for sale
(e)    control of the prices of goods and commodities designated by the national Assembly as essential goods or commodities; and
(f)    registration of business name
As such, there is therefore no vacuum that will make the subject matter residual.
It was also argued that the use of the word “in particular” under item 61 restricts the powers of the federal government to only the provisions of paragraph (a) - (f) above. The Appeal Court however,  relying on the fundamental objective and directive principle of state policy under section 16 of the constitution which directs the federation to control the national economy in such manner as to ensure maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen held in the contrary that the phrase is one of emphasis and not limitation which unequivocally means that  “trade and commerce” without any limitation is the exclusive legislative province of the Federal Government
Another argument raised on this issue was that the intention of the drafters of the constitution was not to concern the Federal Government with petty matters such as control of street trading, regulation and collection of market fees, licensing beer parlours, control of advertising e.t.c which are responsibilities of the state or local government therefore, it will amount to a judicial summersault for the appeal Court to hold that all aspect of trade and commerce are exclusive to the Federal government.
In furtherance, it was also canvassed that if sales tax on whatever matter is an excise duty as held by the Appeal Court, then it would be wrong to say that sales tax falls under item 58 and 61 when excise duty is expressly confined to item 15. It was submitted that if the words “trade and Commerce” in item 61 were intended to cover all aspects and ramifications of trade and commerce to be within the Exclusive legislative list, then it would not have been necessary to make any of the other provisions in the Exclusive Legislative List which are connected to trade and commerce.
Lastly, an alternative argument was advanced that even if the Federal powers is limited under item 61 to the matters set out in paragraph (a) – (f) therein, the state tax law of Ogun State is still unconstitutional and void as it infringes the provisions of trade and commerce between the states as provided for in item 61(a). It was buttressed that the Federal Government having been given powers to regulate inter-state trade and commerce by item 61(a), any state law having the possibility of interfering with trade and commerce between the states is null and void.
The Supreme Court in resolving this issue applied the principle of Interpretation of Statute enunciate in Adesanya v. President of Nigeria (1981) 5 S.C 112 “that all the provisions relating to an issue must be read together and not disjointly”
Based on the above, all provisions of the constitution relating to the taxing powers of the federal government and the State Government were read together.
It was discovered that by virtue of section 4, 150 and item D of part II of the second schedule to the constitution the federation has powers to impose tax on any matter in the exclusive and concurrent list. Also, pursuant to section 4 and item D9 of part II of the second schedule a State has powers to impose tax on matters in the concurrent list and residual matters.
The powers of the state on the Concurrent list are however subject to the rule of inconsistency under section 4(5) and the doctrine of covering the field. i.e, it is not within the competence of the state to:
·         make sales tax law affecting any of the matters in the exclusive legislative list
·         make any sales tax law in the concurrent legislative list which is inconsistent with any law validly made by the Federal Government
·         make any sales law on any matter in the concurrent legislative list where the any validly made law by the Federal has covered the field. i.e where both laws are not in conflict.
Relying on item H 18 of part II of the second schedule which reads:
“subject to the provision of this constitution a House of Assembly may make laws for that state with respect to industrial, commercial or agricultural development of the state”
 And the provisions of section 7(3) of the Constitution:
“it shall be the duty of the local government council within the state to participate in economic planning and development of the area referred to in (2) of this section and to this end an economic planning board shall be establish by a law enacted by the house of Assembly of that State”
The Supreme Court formed an opinion that while the constitution requires the Federation to control the national economy, it also empowers the state to participate in the development of the economy within the state and a Local Government in the development of the economy within its jurisdiction. It is therefore wrong to hold that the state has no power to regulate any aspect of trade and commerce.
HELD:
Bello, J.S.C reading the lead judgment:
            “…I would construe the words “in Particular” in item 61 to be words of limitation and that the trade and commerce power of the Federation is limited to sub-item (a) to (f) therein…in this respect, international trade and commerce and inter- state trade and commerce are specifically reserved for the federation, while trade and commerce within a state is left as a residuary matter to the state.”
COMMENTS:
Although Karibi Whyte J.S.C in his dissenting judgment held that the phrase “in particular” is one of emphasis, it is also my opinion that the above phrase in the context within which it was used cannot be said to be of limitation.
My reason for this is not farfetched.  It is clear that before the phrase was used in Item 61 of the exclusive legislative list, a comma was used to show that it is of emphasis.
            “Trade and commerce, and in particular…”
The 20th Century Chambers Dictionary has defined the word comma as “the points that marks the smallest division of sentence, the smallest interval, break, discontinuity…”
Flowing from the above it is undisputable that the phrase does not limit trade and commerce to the provisions of (a) – (f) rather it stands distinctly on its own.
Having stated that the federation has exclusive power on trade and commerce, and having recognized that the state also possesses taxing powers under the concurrent legislative list, the State cannot be precluded from making laws in accordance with its relevant powers. This must however be done with regards to the above enunciated doctrine of covering the field and inconsistency rule.

B.     Validity of the State Tax Law in so far as it imposes tax on purchasers of all taxable products brought into the State (inter- State Commerce)
Section 4(3) of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria gives the National Assembly Unfettered power to legislate on all items of the Exclusive Legislative List.
The List in its Item 61(a) provides for “trade and commerce between Nigeria and other Countries including Import of commodities into and export of commodities from Nigeria, trade and commerce between states”
The above clearly shows that the Federal Government has the exclusive powers to make any law relating to International Trade and Commerce, and Inter- State Trade and Commerce to the exclusion of the other tiers of government
It was argued that the State House of Assembly under Item H of Part II to the Second Schedule Paragraph 18 and 19 respectively has powers to make laws for the Industrial, Commercial or Agricultural Development of the state.
Item 18 provides: “Subject to the provision of this Constitution a House of Assembly may make Laws for that State with respect to Industrial, commercial or agricultural development of the state”
Item 19 provides: “Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs of this item shall be construed as precluding a House of Assembly from making Laws with respect to any of the matters referred to in the foregoing paragraphs”
This argument was however discarded on the premise that Section 4(3) in clear terms prohibits State from making laws with respect to any matter in the Exclusive List, which includes inter-State trade and commerce.
ESO JSC stated that Trade and Commerce relates to commercial intercourse i.e it involves movement of commerce whether to or from the foreign countries or between interstate or intrastate and the latter done through Sea, air or land and is different from commercial development stated in the concurrent list.
Assuming but not conceding that Trade and commerce and Commercial Development means the same thing, such laws can only be made by the state subject to the inconsistency rule and the Doctrine of Covering the Field.
HELD
Bello JSC reading the lead judgment
“I hold that in so far as the law purports to impose sales tax on taxable products brought into the State, it offends the provision of the inter-state or international trade and commerce and contravenes section 4(3) of the constitution. I declare that the law is unconstitutional to that extent…furthermore, item 61(e) empowers the Federation to control the prices of goods and commodities. Under the Price Control Act 1979 and the Price Control Commodities Order 22 of 1979, the federal Government has controlled the prices of petrol, diesel oil and petroleum products. I have earlier show that the Act and Order are existing laws. since the sale tax is intended to be paid by the consumers, it is tantamount to an increase- in my view- in the prices of the taxable products namely petrol, diesel oil and petroleum the prices of which have been controlled by the Federal Government. That being the case, I hold the sale tax to be inconsistent with the Price Control Act and the Order made thereunder. Consequently, the sale tax on petrol, diesel oil and other petroleum products is unconstitutional null and void”
COMMENTS
In my opinion, the supreme court was right in its decision in that the Sales tax law of Ogun State based on the Provisions of its Section 3 is not only discriminatory, but also undermine the powers given to the federal Government under the Item 61(a) of the Exclusive Legislative List of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by imposing sale tax on all taxable products brought into the state.
It is also inconsistent with the provisions of Section 4(3) which excludes from the purview of the State House of Assembly powers to make laws regarding (Item 61(e) of the Exclusive list) control of the prices of goods and commodities designated by the National Assembly as essential goods or commodities to which petrol, diesel and petroleum products is not an exception.

C.    Whether the tax imposed under the Sales Tax Law is an excise duty within the meaning of Item15 of the Exclusive Legislative List
Under this issue, it is overt that the word ‘excise’ within the context of item 15 of the exclusive legislative list is not defined in the Constitution or in the Interpretation Act 1964 which, by virtue of the Section 277(4) of the 1979 Constitution applies for the purpose of interpreting its provisions. Consequently, it beholds on the court to determine the constitutional meaning of the word.
The appellate court held on this issue that the arm of the Sales Law which provides for the taxation of all taxable products brought into the state is an imposition of excise duty within the meaning of item 15 of the exclusive legislative list of the 1979 Constitution, it is therefore ultra vires of the Ogun State House of assembly, and must accordingly be adjudge null and void.
Counsel for the appellant in person of Adaramaja (chief) contended that in the Nigerian context, ”excise duty” is a tax imposed on production of goods at the place of production and the tax  is paid by the producer before the entry of the goods into the market and that excise duty is not imposed on distribution.
Whereas a sale tax is a tax imposed on a consumer at the time of the sale of the goods, and the fact that a wholesaler is appointed as a collecting agent would not affect the character of the sale tax. To this extent, he relied on Dickenson Arcade Ply Ltd v. The State of Tasmania & Anor. (1974) 13 C.L.R 177.
Gathering more momentum, the Legal drafts man for Kaduna state arguing in favour of the appellant postulated two tests to determine whether a tax is an excise duty or a sale tax. Which includes:      (1) when is the tax due/
                        (2) Who is liable to pay the tax.
In answering the above, he was of the view that an excise duty is due for payment at the place of manufacturing and is paid by the manufacturer who must pay whether he sold the goods or not; and on the other hand, a sale tax is due at the point of sale and the consumer pays. Since the later is the case here, the Ogun state law cannot be regarded as an excise duty.
The Attorney general of Lagos State submitted that the appellate court was wrong in relying on the Australian decisions which were based on the provisions of the Australian Constitution which reflected the history of customs and excise duties in that country. It would therefore be impossible for such to do justice to the word in the context of the Nigerian situation.
Counsel for the respondent in person of Chief Williams on the other hand argued that for practical reasons, it is obviously easiest and most effective to collect the duty immediately on their production before distribution to the wholesalers, retailers or ultimate consumers. It was the convenience of the collection of excise duty at the point of production, according to learned counsel that led to the erroneous impression that “excise duty” is limited only to duty imposed on goods at the point of their production in factory
He therefore based on plethora of Nigerian authorities[3] demonstrated that ‘excise duty’ is simply and purely a tax on manufactured goods and its collection at the point of manufacture is purely a matter arising from practical considerations of effective collection.
Recognizing the Jurisdiction differences, and based on our common law heritage contended that the interpretation given to the word ‘excise’ is of persuasive effect
The Supreme Court in treating the subject matter so that justice would be manifestly done, recognized the dictum of Lord Coleridge in Rv. Peters[4]I am quite aware that dictionaries are not to be taken as authoritative exponents of the meaning of words used in Acts of Parliament, but it is a well known rule of Court of Law that words should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, and we are therefore sent for instruction to these books”. 
The court emphatically stated that a statutory provision is not an aid in the construction of the Constitution but may be a guide in discovering the intention of its framers.
After considering the provisions of Section 2, 29, 15 and 24(1) of the Excise Ordinance, Cap 65 Laws of Nigeria 1948, The Customs and Excise Management Act 1958 as amended by several Acts which repealed the former Ordinance and section 14 of the Customs and Excise Management (Amendment) Act 1972 reasoned that ‘excise duty’ has always been levied on goods manufactured within the country, and tax payable by the manufacturers before the goods are removed from the factory or warehouses.
The constitutional definition given by other common law countries would be inapplicable because they were all decided within the context of the Constitution of the Country concerned.
Hence, there is no universal meaning of the word as each case must be viewed through the spectacles of its constitutional perspectives. In essence, our Constitution should be interpreted in such a manner so as to satisfy the susceptibilities of the Nigerian society for whom it was made and to meet the needs of the Nigerian Institution“… it would be in my respectful view, an exhibition of the highest degree of absurdity, folly and ridicule by a state to follow the example of Australia and make Sales Tax Laws which would require a person who purchased a stick of cigarette from a hawker to go to the State Tax Office for the purpose of paying the sales tax after he has smoked the cigarette”[5].
After due deliberation and inclination, ‘excise’ within the purview of iem15 was defined to be a duty charged on goods, manufactured or produced in Nigeria whether in the process of their manufacture or production or their storage or distribution before their sale to the consumers in Nigeria but does not include a tax imposed on the sale of goods to a distributor, retailer or consumer. For emphasis, “excise” is a tax on the goods while sales tax is a tax on their sale.
HELD
Bello, J.S.C reading the lead judgment:
For the above reasons, I hold that the sales tax imposed under sections 3(1) and 3(4)(ii) of Ogun State Tax Law is not an excise duty.
COMMENTS
It is my opinion on this issue that the Supreme Court in its leading judgment has set the pace that Sale tax law does not in any way amount to excise duty notwithstanding its method/agent of collection in as much as its collected upon sale of the affected goods and not upon their manufacturing or production as the case may be.






[1] BY: MABAWONKU OLUSEGUN OLANREWAJU
[2] [1926] A.C 37 at 52
[3] Tobacco Cigarettes Excise Duty Ordinance No. 23 of 1933, The Custom and Excise Management Act No. 55 of 1958,  Excise Ordinance Cap 65 Laws of Federation 1948, Customs Tariff Act 1965, General Excise Regulation No. 55 of 1958, Excise (Control and Distillation) Act 1964 and the Customs and Excise Management (Amendment) Act, 1960.
[4] (1886) 16 Q.B.D. 636 at 641
[5] Bello JSC