IN RE: CHIEF M. A. OKUPE V. FEDERAL BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

IN RE: CHIEF M. A. OKUPE V. FEDERAL BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE

SHELL BP PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. V. JAMMAL ENGINEERING NIGERIA LIMITED
August 12, 2025
COMFORT ASABORO V. M.G.D. ARUWAJI & ANOR
August 12, 2025
SHELL BP PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. V. JAMMAL ENGINEERING NIGERIA LIMITED
August 12, 2025
COMFORT ASABORO V. M.G.D. ARUWAJI & ANOR
August 12, 2025
Show all

IN RE: CHIEF M. A. OKUPE V. FEDERAL BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE

Legalpedia Citation: (1974-04) Legalpedia (SC) 16112

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Thu Apr 11, 1974

Suit Number: SC. 281/1972

CORAM


ALEXANDER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

COKER, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

UDOMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


IN RE: CHIEF M. A. OKUPE

APPELLANTS 


FEDERAL BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


ASSESSMENT OF TAX – ORDER OF CERTIORARI-PERSONAL INCOME TAX  ACT- TAXATION LAW

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant was served with notices of assessment of tax together with notices of refusal to any objection without being afforded opportunity to object to the assessment within 30 days.

 


HELD


The court held that there was a breach of the Personal Income Tax Act and that an order of certiorari will lie to quash the assessment and to prohibit any further assessment for the period covered by the action.

 


ISSUES


Whether an order of certiorari could lie in the circumstances of this case.

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


RIGHT TO PROPER ASSESSMENT


The law gives the tax-payer the right to object to a proper assessment within a period of thirty days of the service on him of the notice of assessment. Per Coker J.S.C

 


ORDER OF PROHIBITION


An order of Prohibition lies to restrain an inferior tribunal or any body of persons which has a legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects from exceeding its jurisdiction Per Coker J.S.C

 


MEANING OF OBJECTION


A valid objection must and does mean an objection which is sustained and an objection in respect of which a notice of refusal has been served cannot be and it is not a valid objection. Per Coker J.S.C

 


CASES CITED


1. King v. Wandsworth Justices Ex parte Road (1942) 1 KB 281;

2. R. v. Camborne Justices Ex parte Pearce (1955) 1 QB 41.

3. Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) 2 WLR 163P.507

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


1. The Personal Income Tax (Lagos) Act, 1961

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.