TaxLawGHby MSL Business School
MSL Business School verified Ghana tax case
Scancom PLC v Commissioner-General, Ghana Revenue Authority
The Court reversed withholding assessments on payments to foreign carriers for international interconnect and roaming services.
Published by MSL Business School through TaxLawGH.
Authority in context
Read the decision for the proposition the court actually resolved.
A major telecommunications withholding authority on source and network apparatus. No later appellate disposition was identified in the sources reviewed through 19 July 2026. That result does not establish that no appeal, unpublished order or unreported proceeding exists. The source provisions must be matched to the tax year and current legislation.
Parties
- case Title: Scancom PLC v Commissioner-General, Ghana Revenue Authority
Tax topics
- Withholding tax on international interconnect
- roaming services
Material facts
- GRA assessed a total stated on the first page as GH¢281,509,171.65, including principal and penalties on international interconnect and roaming payments.
- NCA expert evidence located the relevant foreign-carrier apparatus outside Ghana.
Questions before the court
- Whether the foreign carrier payments had a Ghana source under Act 592 and Act 896.
- Whether withholding principal and penalties were therefore payable.
What the court held
- The payments were not Ghana-source because the relevant apparatus used to provide the foreign services was not in Ghana.
- The interconnect and roaming withholding assessments and the objection decision were overturned.
Ratio decidendi
For the apparatus-based source provisions applied in the case, the physical location of the network apparatus through which the non-resident service was provided was decisive. Commercial benefit in Ghana did not replace the statutory source test.
Order
Appeal allowed; interconnect and roaming withholding assessments reversed; objection decision overturned. The costs sentence contains an internal drafting duplication (‘in favour of the Appellant in favour of the Respondent’), so the beneficiary is not editorially restated beyond the face wording.
Separate opinions
Not applicable to this single-judge High Court decision; no separate opinion is recorded in the reviewed copy.
Procedural history
Scancom appealed GRA's 8 October 2021 objection decision. The reviewed judgment is a certified court copy hosted publicly by GHTC.
Later treatment
No later appellate disposition was identified in the sources reviewed through 19 July 2026. That result does not establish that no appeal, unpublished order or unreported proceeding exists.
Current-law relevance
A major telecommunications withholding authority on source and network apparatus. No later appellate disposition was identified in the sources reviewed through 19 July 2026. That result does not establish that no appeal, unpublished order or unreported proceeding exists. The source provisions must be matched to the tax year and current legislation.
Legislation considered
- Internal Revenue Act, 2000 (Act 592), sections 63 and 67
- Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896), section 105(h)
- Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915)
Scope and source notes
- The reviewed judgment's costs sentence contains internally duplicated and conflicting wording. This brief therefore does not assign a costs beneficiary.
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), Accra decided Scancom PLC v Commissioner-General, Ghana Revenue Authority on 2024-03-27.
- Relevant tax or litigation period: 2014–2018.
- The recorded procedural path is: Scancom appealed GRA's 8 October 2021 objection decision. The reviewed judgment is a certified court copy hosted publicly by GHTC.
Material facts and evidential anchors
- GRA assessed a total stated on the first page as GH¢281,509,171.65, including principal and penalties on international interconnect and roaming payments.
- NCA expert evidence located the relevant foreign-carrier apparatus outside Ghana.
Questions the court had to answer
- Whether the foreign carrier payments had a Ghana source under Act 592 and Act 896.
- Whether withholding principal and penalties were therefore payable.
Holding, ratio and scope
- The payments were not Ghana-source because the relevant apparatus used to provide the foreign services was not in Ghana.
- The interconnect and roaming withholding assessments and the objection decision were overturned.
- Ratio decidendi: For the apparatus-based source provisions applied in the case, the physical location of the network apparatus through which the non-resident service was provided was decisive. Commercial benefit in Ghana did not replace the statutory source test.
- 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: Appeal allowed; interconnect and roaming withholding assessments reversed; objection decision overturned. The costs sentence contains an internal drafting duplication (‘in favour of the Appellant in favour of the Respondent’), so the beneficiary is not editorially restated beyond the face wording.
- Separate opinions: Not applicable to this single-judge High Court decision; no separate opinion is recorded in the reviewed copy.
Legislative framework
- Legislation applied in the case: Internal Revenue Act, 2000 (Act 592), sections 63 and 67; Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896), section 105(h); Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915).
- 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
- No later appellate disposition was identified in the sources reviewed through 19 July 2026. That result does not establish that no appeal, unpublished order or unreported proceeding exists.
- A major telecommunications withholding authority on source and network apparatus. No later appellate disposition was identified in the sources reviewed through 19 July 2026. That result does not establish that no appeal, unpublished order or unreported proceeding exists. The source provisions must be matched to the tax year and current legislation.
- Related TaxLawGH research pathways: International interconnect, Source of service income, Non-resident withholding.
Limits and research caution
- The reviewed judgment's costs sentence contains internally duplicated and conflicting wording. This brief therefore does not assign a costs beneficiary.
Practical research points
- Start with the court level and later treatment: High Court (Commercial Division), Accra; No later appellate disposition was identified in the sources reviewed through 19 July 2026. That result does not establish that no appeal, unpublished order or unreported proceeding exists.
- 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 Internal Revenue Act, 2000 (Act 592), sections 63 and 67 and Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896), section 105(h).
- 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 International interconnect, Source of service income, Non-resident withholding.
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.