The Federal High Court, Abuja, has nullified the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) demand for €3.2 million and $2.4 million in alleged Value Added Tax (VAT) liabilities against Amadeus Marketing Nigeria Limited, holding that the Commission acted outside its statutory mandate.
Delivering judgment, Justice Obiora Egwatu affirmed that only the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), now the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS) is vested with statutory authority to assess and enforce VAT obligations.
The court clarified that while the EFCC retains broad investigative powers under Section 6 of the EFCC Act to probe economic and financial crimes, those powers do not extend to issuing tax assessments or demand notices.
“The Defendant’s acts of assessing and issuing a demand notice for the payment of VAT liability are ultra vires and therefore amount to a nullity,” Justice Egwatu held.
The EFCC had, by letter dated 8 October 2024 (Exhibit A4), served Amadeus with a purported VAT liability assessment amounting to €3,213,707.20 and $2,476,462.49. The Commission argued that Amadeus and certain airline operators had generated revenue in Nigeria for over 15 years without registering for tax purposes.
Amadeus’ legal team, led by Ogunmuyiwa Balogun and Babatunde Ige, challenged the legality of the EFCC’s demand, insisting that tax assessment falls exclusively within the remit of the FIRS.
Justice Egwatu examined the statutory provisions cited by the EFCC, including Sections 38(1) and (2) and Section 24 of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and concluded that none conferred authority to assess or demand tax payments.
He stressed that if tax evasion or money laundering is uncovered during EFCC investigations, the proper course is to file criminal charges—not to usurp the functions of the tax authority.
The court declared the EFCC’s VAT assessment and demand notice null and void. Issued a perpetual injunction restraining the EFCC from further assessing or demanding tax payments from Amadeus on the facts of the case.
Reaffirmed that tax assessment and collection remain the exclusive preserve of the FIRS/NRS under the FIRS Act and other tax statutes.
This judgment provides clarity on the jurisdictional boundaries between the EFCC and the FIRS, reinforcing that anti-graft agencies cannot assume tax assessment powers. It underscores the principle of statutory interpretation and the need for regulatory bodies to act strictly within their enabling laws.
