Constitutional Court upholds VAT payment ruling

The Constitutional Court yesterday confirmed a judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court and dismissed a constitutional application filed by a company against the Commissioner for VAT.

The constitutional application was filed by A & J Hili Miema Ltd against the VAT Commissioner.

The company had contested a VAT assessment for Lm28,000 before the VAT Appeals Board and on November 4, 1999 the board had rejected its application.

The company appealed to the Court of Appeal without success for the appellate court decided on the basis of a procedural point without deliberating on the merits.

The Court of Appeal declared null and void the company's appeal which was found to be procedurally irregular.

The appeal contained no request for a revocation or for a variation of the board's decision.

The company then filed a constitutional application before the First Hall of the Civil Court for a judicial declaration that its right to a fair hearing was infringed in proceedings before the board.

In its application the company submitted that it had not been granted the opportunity and time to present its defence and documents necessary to support its case.

However, the VAT Commissioner submitted that the company had other remedies available to it in terms of ordinary law.

In October 14, 1994 the First Hall of the Civil Court found against the company and ruled that there existed grounds to decline to exercise its jurisdiction in terms of the Constitution.

The company had failed to exercise its remedies and its means of redress under ordinary law before an independent and impartial tribunal.

The court held that a human rights application ought not to be filed if an application had at its disposal sufficient remedies under ordinary law.

The company, the court said, was to blame for non-observance of law on procedure before the Court of Appeal and the human rights remedy was not intended for the correction of errors.

The company then lodged an appeal to the Constitutional Court composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti.

In its judgment delivered yesterday the appellate court noted that the company had other remedies available to it in terms of law.

The company had admitted that its lawyer had made procedural errors when the appeal had been filed from the VAT appeals board to the Court of Appeal.

However, the company was submitting that these errors ought not to have consequences for itself.

This was an unacceptable proposition, the Constitutional Court ruled, for the company had not been deprived of its right to appeal.

The Constitutional Court dismissed the company's appeal and confirmed the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court.