The Supreme Court has thrown out the injunction application filed against the e-levy.

he apex court has also directed the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) to preserve the records generated since the levy’s implementation on May 1, 2022.

The apex court also directed the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) to keep all records of deductions following the implementation of the electronic transaction levy.

In a unanimous ruling Presiding Judge Nene Amegatcher reading the judgment noted that the nature of the relief sought by the minority is null and void.

Three Members of Parliament; Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu; Mahama Ayariga(Bawku Central) and Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa(North Tongu) are seeking the Supreme Court to restrain the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) from implementing the E-Levy until the final determination of an earlier substantive suit challenging the constitutionality of the bill by Parliament.

Lead counsel for minority, Godwin Edudzi Tamaklo argued that greater parties will suffer, adding he SAID e-levy did not seek the interest of the public.

Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame opposed the injunction by the three minority members.

The A-G explained that this is a result of a Court of Appeals’ ruling on March 22, which struck out an appeal filed by Mr Quayson.

The AG, therefore, said the number required to transact Parliamentary business on the said day was 137.

He pointed out that except for Dome-Kwabenya MP Sarah Adwoa Sarfo, all 137 members of the Majority side were present.

But the Minority Leader

Haruna Iddrisu noted that it is unconstitutional to pass the bill into law with numbers below the minimum constitutional threshold of 138 MPs.

“I heard the Attorney-General arguing that it was a voice vote. So Ebenezer Kum voted with his voice from an ambulance, or he voted with his voice from a clinic?

“He is insisting that 266 MPs participated in the decision and motion – 266 MPs after the Minority of 136 walked out?” he quizzed.

In the suit filed on Tuesday, April 19, Mr. Iddrisu contends that Parliament did not have the required number of at least half of its members present when the controversial tax policy was approved.