|
Welcome to the new SeyLII website. Enjoy an improved search engine and new collections. If you are used to accessing SeyLII via Google, note Google will take some time to re-index the site. We are still busy migrating some of the old content. If you need anything in particular from the old website, it will be available for a while longer at https://old.seylii.org/ |
Commissioner of Taxes v Ernesta (19 of 2009) [2010] SCSC 27 (18 March 2010);
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES
COMMISSIONER OF TAXES
VS
RONNIE MICHEL ERNESTA
Civil side no: 19 of 2009
Ms. Cecile for the Plaintiff
Defendant unrepresented
JUDGMENT
Burhan, J
The plaintiff in this case , the Commissioner of Taxes filed plaint against the defendant Ronnie Michel Ernesta in terms of section 125 of the Business Tax Act (Cap 20) claiming a sum of SR 201,444.65 in respect of outstanding taxes.
The defendant Mr Ronnie Michel Ernesta was initially present in court after service of summons but thereafter defaulted, resulting in the case been fixed for ex- parte hearing. Miss Marie Annette Fred giving evidence on behalf of the plaintiff produced in evidence as P1 the business registration form of the defendant’s company dated 29th August 2001, showing that he was conducting the business of electrical and electronic services under the name of Advance Technical Services at Revolution Avenue Victoria. She further stated under oath that the defendant had submitted his business tax return forms for the year 2002 and 2003 and notice of assessment forms for the years 2002 and 2003 were served on him. She further testified that there were no objections from the defendant in respect of the notice of assessment forms received by him and he had come to the office to discuss the said notices and the tax officers had after discussion with him, made adjustments in respect of the social security and casual labour contributions. Thereafter notice of amended assessment was sent to the defendant for the years 2002 and 2003. According to the evidence of this witness and as specified in paragraph 11 of the Plaint the business tax assessment for the year 2002 due and owing from the defendant to the plaintiff was SR 113,827.88 and the sum due and owing from the defendant to the plaintiff for the year 2003 was SR 87,616.77.
On considering the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff, the documents marked P1 to P4 corroborate the evidence of witness Marie Annette Marie. Further as to the evidence of this witness stands uncontradicted, there is no reason for court not to accept the evidence given by this witness. Therefore court is satisfied that the defendant owes the plaintiff in total a sum of SR 201,444.65 as outstanding taxes.
Judgment is entered for the plaintiff as prayed for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the prayer of the plaint.
M.BURHAN
JUDGE
Dated this 19th day of March 2010