Connect with us

Auto

Tax Default: God is Good Motors Knocks FIRS, Demands Retraction

Published

on

By Adedapo Adesanya

Nigeria’s leading transport franchise, God Is Good Motors (GIGM), has demanded the removal of its name from a published list of tax defaulters by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS).

The firm said it has fully paid documented tax liability as demanded by the services, wondering how it could have defaulted after meeting all obligations.

It claimed that no prior demand notices were served on the firm in any of its branches nationwide as required by Sections 32 (d) and 33(1) of the FIRS Establishment Act before publication of its name among defaulters.

In a nine-point rejoinder dated August 21 signed by Finance Director of GIGM, Mr Joseph Osanipin, the firm described FIRS’ action as “totally unacceptable, unprofessional and unethical.”

It said the embarrassing development was ”negatively affecting our mutual business dealings with both our foreign and local partners,” urging the FIRS to reverse it with immediate effect.

The rejoinder titled: “Unpleasant and unlawful publication of our company name as tax defaulters on print and social media” reads: “Sequel to your publication of names of tax defaulters on Public Media, amongst which our Company’s name was maliciously included, we respond thus:

“Our Company; God is Good Motors Nigeria Limited is a duly registered Company in Nigeria with full compliance with the requirements of all relevant Government Agencies one of which is the Federal Inland Revenue Service.

“That the above stated Account name with Zenith Bank GOD IS GOOD MOTORS (VEHICLE SALESS A/C) is not a different Company nor a subsidiary of our company stated above, rather it is the same company but with a modified account name for ease of reconciling our transactions.

“We registered our Business with the Federal Inland Revenue Service as far back as 2010 with a Taxpayer Identification Number: 09568000-0001, with all documented tax liability fully paid up as demanded by the service.

“FIRS has carried out series of Tax Audits on our Company with the latest being May, 2018 vide a letter from your same head office dated 18th April, 2018 and signed by the Director of Tax Audit Department which I suppose you could verify from your internal records.

“We find it totally unacceptable, unprofessional, and unethical the manner in which our account name above was published on public media.

“This is a malicious attempt at smearing the good name and brand we have struggled to build over the years without even a demand notice served on us as stipulated in the FIRS Establishment Act Section 32 (d)….” the Service shall serve a demand notice upon the company or person in whose name a tax is chargeable and if payment is not made within one month from the date of the-service of such demand notice, the Service may proceed to enforce payment under this Act”

“Also Section 33(1) of the FIRS Establishment Act also states:…” Without prejudice to any other power conferred on the Board for the enforcement of payment of tax due from a company, where an assessment has become final and conclusive and a demand notice has, in accordance with the provisions of the relevant tax laws tax in the First Schedule to this Act, been served upon the taxable person or upon the person in whose name the taxable person is chargeable, then, if payment of the tax is not made within the time limited by the demand notice, the Board may in the prescribed form, for the purpose of enforcing payment of the tax due”

“Both sections of the FIRS Establishment act stated above clearly states that a demand notice must be served on the intended taxpayer before enforcement procedures are carried out, hence we find it very embarrassing that no demand notices were served on us or any of our branches/outlets yet our name was published on public media as delinquent and defaulting taxpayers

“The FIRS should look into her records to confirm our points as stated in 1. – 8 above and update our records with your Agency to avoid any future embarrassment of this nature as our organization takes issues like this as topmost priority.

“A counter publication should be made to expunge our Company name from the list of tax defaulters as this is negatively affecting our mutual business dealings with both our foreign and local partners.”

Adedapo Adesanya is a journalist, polymath, and connoisseur of everything art. When he is not writing, he has his nose buried in one of the many books or articles he has bookmarked or simply listening to good music with a bottle of beer or wine. He supports the greatest club in the world, Manchester United F.C.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Auto

FRSC, Brewery Companies Renew Pact to Tackle Drink-Driving

Published

on

FRSC Brewery Companies

The Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) has renewed a strategic partnership with major brewing companies in Nigeria to intensify efforts against drunk driving and improve road safety nationwide.

The renewed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), signed with members of the Beer Sectoral Group (BSG), extends the collaboration for another five years, with both sides pledging to deepen public awareness, enforcement and community engagement.

FRSC Corps Marshal, Shehu Mohammed, said the partnership underscores the importance of synergy between government and the private sector in addressing road crashes, particularly those linked to alcohol consumption.

He stressed that saving lives on Nigerian roads requires sustained collaboration, adding that the corps would continue to work with industry players to promote responsible behaviour among motorists.

Speaking on behalf of the BSG, Managing Director of Nigerian Breweries Plc and Chairman BSG, Thibaut Boidin, said the renewal reflects the industry’s commitment to sustained collaboration with regulators. He cited previous joint campaigns, including the Don’t Drink and Drive Campaign, as impactful, adding that the next phase would focus on expanding reach and strengthening implementation.

Also speaking, the Managing Director of Guinness Nigeria, Girish Sharma, said the industry remains committed to supporting initiatives that promote safer roads. He noted that while alcoholic beverages are often blamed for road crashes, the real issue lies in irresponsible consumption, particularly drinking and driving.

“We are here to work with you and ensure that this programme grows bigger and delivers real impact. Saving lives is what matters most,” he said.

Similarly, the chief executive of International Breweries Plc, Mr Nicholas Kade, commended the FRSC for its dedication, describing the corps’ efforts as critical to making communities safer. He said the brewing industry would continue to support initiatives that promote responsible drinking and road safety.

The Executive Director of the Beer Sectoral Group, Ms Abiola Laseinde, described the renewal as a milestone in public-private collaboration.

She said the partnership had driven nationwide campaigns against drunk-driving, influenced behaviour and reached millions of Nigerians with road safety messages.

Ms Laseinde added that both parties would scale up interventions in the next five years to further reduce crashes and promote responsible alcohol consumption.

The FRSC and BSG’s partnership has been central to national campaigns discouraging drunk-driving, with stakeholders expressing optimism that the renewed agreement will deliver stronger outcomes.

Continue Reading

Auto

NRS Denies Introduction of New Vehicle Tax from July 1

Published

on

new vehicle tax

By Modupe Gbadeyanka

The Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS) refuted reports making the rounds on social media that the federal government plans to introduce a new tax on vehicles from July 1, 2026.

Mr Dare Adekambi, who serves as the Special Adviser to the NRS Chairman, Mr Zach Adedeji, and spokesperson for the organisation, said in a statement that the government was not planning to introduce the vehicle tax as claimed.

He described a viral infographic purporting the policy as false and misleading, urging members of the public to disregard it.

Mr Adekambi advised citizens to only rely on information from the NRS, urging them to follow the company its official handles on all social media platforms and its website for accurate information about tax and its activities.

In the infographic, motorists were directed to pay an unspecified vehicle tax rate online or at approved banks and agencies. The website listed as NRS’s was the old one, http://www.firs.gov.ng and not the new http://www.nrs.gov.ng created after it was rebranded.

“The NRS wishes to state categorically that the information did not emanate from the service or any government agency.

“Citizens are, therefore, advised to disregard the fabricated messages designed to mislead the public and instead rely on official government channels for information on government policies,” Mr Adekambi said in the statement.

Continue Reading

Auto

Court Restrains Police, FRSC from Imposing Car Insurance Fines Without Court Order

Published

on

third-party insurance

By Adedapo Adesanya

The Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Nigeria Police Force and the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) from imposing fines on motorists for third-party motor vehicle insurance violations without a court order.

The ruling followed a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/291/2025 filed by activist-lawyer, Mr Deji Adeyanju, against the Inspector-General of Police, the Attorney-General of the Federation and the FRSC.

Delivering judgment on Friday, Justice Hauwa Yilwa held that while both the police and the FRSC have the power to enforce compliance with third-party motor insurance, they lack the legal authority to impose fines on alleged offenders.

The suit was initiated through an originating summons, brought pursuant to Section 17 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1950, Sections 68(3) and (4) of the Insurance Act, 2003, as well as provisions of the Federal Road Safety Commission (Establishment) Act, 2007.

Mr Adeyanju had asked the court to determine whether the police could enforce third-party insurance, impose fines without judicial backing, and whether such enforcement during routine stop-and-search operations violated constitutional rights.

He also sought a declaration on whether the power to enforce third-party motor insurance lies exclusively with the FRSC.

In addition to the declaratory relief, the applicant requested orders of perpetual injunction restraining the police from enforcing third-party insurance and from imposing fines without judicial backing.

He further urged the court to hold the Attorney-General of the Federation accountable for providing legal guidance on the scope of police powers under the relevant statutes.

However, in its judgment, the court drew a distinction between enforcement and sanctioning powers.

Counsel to the applicant, Mr Marvin Omorogbe, said the court upheld the authority of both the police and the FRSC to ensure compliance with motor vehicle insurance laws, but firmly ruled against the imposition of fines by either agency.

According to him, the court held that “the police and the road safety may enforce” compliance but “outrightly lack the powers to impose fines on third parties or vehicle owners” in the course of such enforcement.

“The court went further to restrain the IGP, the Police Force and all their officers, including the FRSC, from imposing fines on motor vehicle users or Nigerian citizens,” Mr Omorogbe said.

Reacting to the judgment, Mr Adeyanju expressed satisfaction, noting that the central objective of the suit had been achieved.

“The sole reason why we came to court is that we wanted the court to make a positive declaration that the police and the road safety do not have the right to impose fines on any Nigerian over motor vehicle insurance. And we have succeeded,” he said.

He argued that the ruling would curb what he described as a pattern of extortion by enforcement agencies and restore confidence among motorists.

Mr Adeyanju added that although the court declined to grant all the reliefs sought—particularly the request to strip the police entirely of enforcement powers—it nonetheless made a significant pronouncement on the limits of those powers.

He also urged Nigerians to take advantage of the judgment to assert their rights and seek legal remedies where necessary.

On the other hand, counsel to the defendants, Mr Victor Okoye, said the judgment was only partly favourable to the police and signalled plans to challenge it at the Court of Appeal.

Mr Okoye disclosed that the defence had raised a preliminary objection questioning the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, arguing that the originating summons was incompetent and unsuitable for resolving contentious issues.

He relied on appellate authorities to stress that jurisdiction is fundamental to adjudication and must be determined before any substantive issues.

Despite this, he noted, the court proceeded to deliver judgment.

Continue Reading

Trending