The Public Services Association (PSA) has failed in its second attempt to challenge the move to implement the long-touted T&T Revenue Authority (TTRA).
Delivering a judgment, a short while ago, Appellate Judges Nolan Bereaux, Charmaine Pemberton, and Mira Dean-Armorer dismissed an appeal brought by PSA member and customs officer Terrisa Dhoray after her case was rejected by High Court Judge Westmin James in November, last year.
The appeal panel said: “We find no reason to depart from the findings of the first instance judge.”
The outcome of the appeal was warmly received by Finance Minister Colm Imbert.
“The Court of Appeal just ruled unanimously that the T&T Revenue Act is valid and constitutional and does not breach the constitutional rights of public officers,” Imbert said in a post on X.
“We can now move swiftly to improve and maximise revenue collection for the benefit of all our citizens,” he added.
In the lawsuit, the PSA, through Dhoray, challenged the constitutional validity of the legislation which seeks to replace the Customs and Excise Division (CED) and the Inland Revenue Division (IRD) with the TTRA.
The lawsuit specifically focused on Section 18 of the legislation which was proclaimed by President Christine Kangaloo on April 24, last year.
The section gives public servants three months to make a decision on their future employment upon the operationalisation of the TTRA.
Affected public servants have the choice to voluntarily resign from the Public Service, accept a transfer to the TTRA, or be transferred to another office in the Public Service.
The implementation was initially expected to take place in August but was deferred by Finance Minister Colm Imbert to December based on the case. It was subsequently deferred to March to facilitate the appeal.
Dhoray’s lawyers contend certain segments of the legislation are unconstitutional as they seek to interfere with the terms and conditions of employment of public servants currently assigned to the CED and IRD.
She also claimed that the Government did not have the power to delegate its tax revenue collection duties.
In its defence, the Government has claimed that tax collection could be delegated once guidelines are provided by Parliament.
Justice James disagreed with Dhoray’s legal challenge.
While he noted that taxation is a key source of a government’s revenue and that the process of assessing and collecting taxes is essential, he noted that there were currently instances of private entities being able to collect taxes on the government’s behalf.
He also pointed out that several foreign countries have set up similar specialist bodies to deal with the “complexities” of modern taxation.
Dhoray was represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC, Jayanti Lutchmedial, Kent Samlal, Robert Abdool-Mitchell, Natasha Bisram, Vishaal Siewsaran and Ganesh Saroop.
The State was represented by Douglas Mendes, SC, Simon de la Bastide, and Leann Thomas.