What the two lower courts, and indeed the Respondent failed to appreciate is that, the special nature of the transaction between the Appellant and indeed the parties to the Petroleum Agreement demands that, the relevant tax statute, must at all times, be read within the confines or limitations of the mutually agreed expectations of the Petroleum Agreement which was also ratified by Parliament. Quite instructively, and as already pointed out, Articles 12.1, 12.3 and 26 of the Petroleum Agreement seek to stabilize all laws including Act 592 and Act 896 except as expressly provided in the Agreement. As can be observed from the Petroleum Agreement, even when PNDCL 188 was mentioned, the agreement was specific as to the extent of its application that, the tax to be imposed on Appellant should be a final withholding tax of 5% as dictated by Section 27(2) of PNDCL 188.
MAERSK DRILLSHIP IV SINGAPORE PTE LTD. (SUING PER ITS LAWFUL ATTORNEY, JORGEN SCHAFFER) VS. THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/59/2024 [2025] SLR (SC) 7 · Supreme Court · 2025 · TANKO AMADU JSC
Read it in the judgment