TaxLawGHby MSL Business School
MSL Business School verified Ghana tax case
Scancom PLC v Commissioner-General, Ghana Revenue Authority
The High Court upheld VAT apportionment for imported services supporting taxable telecom and exempt mobile-money activities, and treated the 2018 NHIL/GETFund levies as distinct non-creditable levies.
Published by MSL Business School through TaxLawGH.
Authority in context
Read the decision for the proposition the court actually resolved.
Directly addresses Act 870 and the 2018 levy amendments for historical periods. Ghana's VAT legislation has since changed, so the current VAT Act and levy provisions must be applied to later transactions.
Parties
- appellant: Scancom PLC
- respondent: Commissioner-General, Ghana Revenue Authority
Tax topics
- VAT
- NHIL
- GETFund Levy
- Imported services
- Partial exemption
Material facts
- Scancom carried on taxable telecommunications and exempt mobile-money activities. GRA's audit addressed imported services said to support both streams.
- The remaining disputes concerned VAT for 2014–2017 and the amended NHIL and GETFund levies for August–December 2018.
Questions before the court
- Whether Scancom was a partial-exemption trader and whether imported-service VAT should be apportioned.
- Whether the amended NHIL and GETFund levies operated like creditable VAT and whether they applied to imported services used in exempt activities.
What the court held
- Because the business made taxable and exempt supplies, it was a partial-exemption trader; apportionment of imported-service VAT was appropriate on the evidence.
- The amended NHIL and GETFund charges were separate levies, not ordinary VAT input tax. They applied to imported services and were not reduced through the VAT input-credit mechanism.
Ratio decidendi
Under the legislation governing the audited periods, imported inputs serving both taxable and exempt business activities were subject to the partial-exemption allocation rules, while the separately enacted 2018 levies followed their own charging provisions rather than VAT's input-credit mechanism.
Order
Tax appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Separate opinions
Not applicable; single High Court judge.
Procedural history
High Court tax appeal from GRA's objection decision. A July 2024 professional report stated that Scancom had appealed to the Court of Appeal; no appellate disposition was located by 18 July 2026.
Later treatment
Court of Appeal status reported as pending; current disposition not located in the reviewed public sources.
Current-law relevance
Directly addresses Act 870 and the 2018 levy amendments for historical periods. Ghana's VAT legislation has since changed, so the current VAT Act and levy provisions must be applied to later transactions.
Legislation considered
- Value Added Tax Act, 2013 (Act 870), sections 1, 49 and 65
- National Health Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act 971)
- Ghana Education Trust Fund (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act 972)
MSL Business School research layer
Detailed TaxLawGH analysis
A structured reading of the verified facts, issues, reasoning, result, later treatment and limits of the decision.
Decision identity and litigation posture
- High Court (Commercial Division) decided Scancom PLC v Commissioner-General, Ghana Revenue Authority on 2023-11-09.
- Relevant tax or litigation period: VAT: 2014–2017; NHIL and GETFund levies: August–December 2018.
- The recorded procedural path is: High Court tax appeal from GRA's objection decision. A July 2024 professional report stated that Scancom had appealed to the Court of Appeal; no appellate disposition was located by 18 July 2026.
Material facts and evidential anchors
- Scancom carried on taxable telecommunications and exempt mobile-money activities. GRA's audit addressed imported services said to support both streams.
- The remaining disputes concerned VAT for 2014–2017 and the amended NHIL and GETFund levies for August–December 2018.
Questions the court had to answer
- Whether Scancom was a partial-exemption trader and whether imported-service VAT should be apportioned.
- Whether the amended NHIL and GETFund levies operated like creditable VAT and whether they applied to imported services used in exempt activities.
Holding, ratio and scope
- Because the business made taxable and exempt supplies, it was a partial-exemption trader; apportionment of imported-service VAT was appropriate on the evidence.
- The amended NHIL and GETFund charges were separate levies, not ordinary VAT input tax. They applied to imported services and were not reduced through the VAT input-credit mechanism.
- Ratio decidendi: Under the legislation governing the audited periods, imported inputs serving both taxable and exempt business activities were subject to the partial-exemption allocation rules, while the separately enacted 2018 levies followed their own charging provisions rather than VAT's input-credit mechanism.
- The holding is bounded by the issues, proved facts, statutory period and court level recorded in this brief. It should not be converted into a broader rule than the court needed to decide the appeal.
Order, remedy and separate reasons
- Formal order: Tax appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
- Separate opinions: Not applicable; single High Court judge.
Legislative framework
- Legislation applied in the case: Value Added Tax Act, 2013 (Act 870), sections 1, 49 and 65; National Health Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act 971); Ghana Education Trust Fund (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act 972).
- The decision must be matched to the legislation and tax period actually before the court, rather than treated as a free-standing statement of current rates or procedure.
Later treatment and present-day use
- Court of Appeal status reported as pending; current disposition not located in the reviewed public sources.
- Directly addresses Act 870 and the 2018 levy amendments for historical periods. Ghana's VAT legislation has since changed, so the current VAT Act and levy provisions must be applied to later transactions.
- Related TaxLawGH research pathways: VAT on imported services, Partial exemption, NHIL and GETFund levies.
Limits and research caution
- No additional source qualification is required beyond the stated court level, procedural posture, statutory period and limits of the holding.
Practical research points
- Start with the court level and later treatment: High Court (Commercial Division); Court of Appeal status reported as pending; current disposition not located in the reviewed public sources.
- Match the present facts to the precise issues and ratio rather than relying on the case name or outcome alone.
- Check the governing provisions for the relevant period, especially Value Added Tax Act, 2013 (Act 870), sections 1, 49 and 65 and National Health Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act 971).
- Separate the court's binding holding and order from obiter, dissenting reasons and questions the court did not reach.
- Confirm the procedural route, deadline and evidential burden under the law now in force before applying a historical decision.
- Use this case alongside TaxLawGH research on VAT on imported services, Partial exemption, NHIL and GETFund levies.
Institutional publisher
TaxLawGH is the Ghana tax and fiscal-policy knowledge system of MSL Business School.
This case brief forms part of MSL Business School’s maintained legal-research resource for Ghanaian tax law.