You are here: HomeOpinionsArticles2001 04 24Article 14841

General News of Tuesday, 24 April 2001

Source: Ghanaian Chronicle

VAT Service Seizes GIHOC Property

The VAT Service seized seven vehicles and two air-conditioners belonging to the GIHOC Distilleries Company Limited for defaulting in the payment of Value Added Tax (VAT) amounting to over ?420million and Excise Duty amounting to over ?789million, all inclusive of interest, accrued to the company.

These amounts are in respect to payments due, as at the end of last year and for which the items would be auctioned after a two- week ultimatum given to the company.

The bonded ware-house, finished goods ware-house and the materials ware-house of the company had also been under heavy lock under the supervision of VAT officials who stormed the company's premises last Thursday.

GIHOC Distilleries, a major manufacturing outfit in hard liquor with international recognition, had enjoyed much favour in the past Rawlings' administration as its Managing Director is in the person of Ms. Sherry Ayittey, one of the big shots of the National Democratic Congress(NDC).

Because of the nearly 20 years governance of political influence the company had enjoyed from the past administration, it did not in the least anticipate that the company would be held up in such a hard fix.

Speaking with the Chronicle, the Solicitor for the VAT Service, Mr. James Benson, who is at the helm of the exercise, intimated that series of letters corresponded to GIHOC Distilleries Company through their Managing Director to pay for monies owed to the VAT Service, had yielded no response.

He noted that it is for this reason that the exercise was carried out.

Mr. Benson maintained that negotiations between GIHOC and the VAT Service were entered into to make payments very congenial for the former, but they could not adhere to the conditions of the negotiations.

When this reporter contacted some of the management staff of GIHOC to comment on the company's default in its VAT payment, they said they were not in the position to comment on the issue.

The Managing Director, who is in the position to comment on the issue, was not available as at the time the exercise was carried out and the subsequent leaving of this reporter from the company's premises at 1.30pm.