-says agency acted unlawfully in bid to recover taxes
The High Court yesterday ruled that the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) acted unlawfully in its attempts to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes from members of the Mohamed family and barred it from seizing their luxury vehicles.
In separate rulings handed down by Justice Gino Persaud in the Constitutional and Administrative Division of the High Court, the court quashed the GRA’s decisions to impose taxes totalling nearly $800 million on a Ferrari and a Rolls-Royce imported by members of the Mohamed family and ordered the revenue authority to pay legal costs.
The rulings stemmed from legal challenges brought by Hana Mohamed and Bibi Mohamed, relatives of WIN Leader, Azruddin Mohamed, against the Commissioner General of the GRA and the revenue authority over the revocation of tax exemptions and subsequent demands for additional taxes.
In the case involving Hana Mohamed’s 2020 Ferrari 488, bearing registration number PAD 5000, Justice Persaud granted an order of certiorari quashing the GRA’s imposition of taxes amounting to $479,743,489 and its requirement that the vehicle be surrendered to the agency’s Law Enforcement and Investigative Division.
The court also quashed the GRA’s decision to rescind Hana Mohamed’s tax exemption letters dated July 19, 2022 and January 6, 2023.
Justice Persaud further declared that the Commissioner General’s failure to lawfully consider and apply his discretion regarding Hana Mohamed’s explanations for her temporary absences from Guyana was “unreasonable, arbitrary, irrational, unfair and unlawful.”
The matter was remitted to the Commissioner General for reconsideration, with the court ordering that the revenue authority fairly consider the applicant’s reasons for her temporary absences from Guyana and determine whether they were inconsistent with her status as a qualifying remigrant.
The judge further ordered that the Commissioner General afford Hana Mohamed a hearing and an opportunity to provide additional written representations and documentary evidence before making a fresh decision.
In a separate matter involving Bibi Mohamed’s 2023 Rolls-Royce Cullinan, bearing registration number PAE 5000, Justice Persaud ruled that conditions imposed by the GRA requiring that the vehicle be used solely by the applicant as her primary mode of transportation and that she report to the GRA every six months with proof of registration, insurance and roadworthiness were not authorised by law.
The court found that those conditions were “arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, irrational, unlawful and ultra vires the Customs Act.”
Justice Persaud subsequently quashed the GRA’s imposition of $320,064,242 in taxes on the vehicle, as well as the agency’s revocation of Bibi Mohamed’s tax exemption letter dated November 20, 2023.
The court also permanently restrained the GRA from seizing or detaining the Rolls-Royce or instituting forfeiture proceedings in relation to the disputed tax assessment.
Similarly, a permanent injunction was granted preventing the GRA from seizing Hana Mohamed’s Ferrari or taking steps to recover the disputed taxes based on its decisions communicated in letters dated March 4 and March 26, 2025.
While ruling in favour of the applicants, Justice Persaud noted that the judgments did not compel the Commissioner General to ultimately decide the matters in the Mohameds’ favour.
“The Commissioner General remains the primary decision-maker, but he must exercise his powers lawfully, fairly and rationally,” the judge stated.
The court ordered the GRA to pay costs of $750,000 in each matter by August 13, 2026.
The legal dispute escalated earlier this year after the GRA sought to recover additional taxes and moved to seize several luxury vehicles imported by members of the Mohamed family under tax exemption arrangements. In April, Justice Persaud had granted an interim injunction restraining the GRA from seizing the vehicles pending the determination of the substantive proceedings.
Appeal
Attorney-at-law Sanjeev Datadin, part of the legal team representing the GRA, told Kiskadee Watch last evening that they do not agree with Justice Persaud’s ruling.
He appeared alongside Senior Counsel Robin Stoby, Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, Jason Moore, Fiona Hamilton, Omise Gordon, Judy Stuart-Adonis and Martha Halley for the respondents (the GRA and the Commissioner General).
“We think there are some clear errors of law which we have identified and by morning (Friday), we will file an appeal, or by tonight; still working on it,” he shared, adding, “Courts do what they do and if you think that errors have been made, you have the right to appeal and we will pursue that.”
Datadin further shared that while the court had delivered its ruling, the legal team had not yet received the judge’s written reasons for the decision. He noted that although the outcome of the case was known, the substantive reasoning underpinning the ruling had not yet been made available and was being awaited.
Attorney-at-law Siand Dhurjon representing the Mohameds told this publication that he was grateful that the court had vindicated his clients and that the rule of law had prevailed. He expressed confidence that the GRA would appeal the ruling, arguing that the agency had little choice but to do so in an effort to save face.
However, he maintained that filing an appeal and successfully overturning the High Court’s decision were two entirely different matters, adding that his legal team anticipated the next steps the respondents would take and is fully prepared to respond.
An apology without question
Speaking with Kiskadee Watch, Azruddin Mohamed expressed that this case is a clear indication of the political targeting of the Mohameds.
He said the family’s legal team will carefully review the court’s written decision and take whatever further steps are necessary to ensure that the judgment is fully respected and implemented. “Of course, we are waiting to see whether the GRA intends to spend even more taxpayers’ money appealing today’s decision. That is a decision for them, but the people of Guyana deserve to know how much more of their money this Government is prepared to spend pursuing the Mohamed family through the courts.”
Mohamed said he believes that “without question” the government owes he and his family an apology. “My family has endured years of attacks, reputational damage, enormous financial costs, and relentless political persecution. This case should never have happened,” he said.
“The Government owes my family an apology, but much more than that, it owes the people of Guyana an explanation. Tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars were spent on legal fees, travel expenses, retaining expensive lawyers including a former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, and several Senior Counsel in an attempt to justify actions that have now been rejected by the Court.”
Mohamed said Attorney General Anil Nandlall must realise that this latest judgment is a reminder that the rule of law must endure. “We hope this serves as a warning that the government must never weaponise State institutions against its political opponents or any Guyanese for that matter regardless of political affiliation without being held accountable.”
When contacted by this publication, Nandlall declined to comment on the ruling.
Discussion