What should a taxpayer do when they disagree with a decision by the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA)? It is one of the most frequently asked questions in my role as Technical Advisor to the Commissioner-General, and rightly so.
Tax administration is not a one-way process. While the law empowers GRA to assess and collect taxes to support national development, it also protects taxpayers’ rights to challenge decisions they consider incorrect, unfair or inconsistent with the law.
In Ghana, these rights are principally governed by the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915), as amended by the Revenue Administration (Amendment) Act, 2020 (Act 1029). Together, these laws establish a structured process through which taxpayers can seek redress, from an initial objection to the Commissioner-General through independent administrative and judicial appeals.
Understanding this process is essential for individuals, businesses and tax advisers because failure to observe statutory procedures and deadlines can undermine an otherwise legitimate case.
Understanding tax disputes
A tax dispute arises when a taxpayer disagrees with a formal decision taken by GRA. Under Act 915, this may include an assessment of tax payable, refusal to amend an assessment, refusal of a tax refund, a decision on an objection, or the imposition of interest and penalties.
However, not every engagement with GRA constitutes an appealable decision. Routine correspondence requesting documents, invitations to meetings and requests for clarification do not, in themselves, qualify as tax decisions.
Taxpayers must therefore identify the specific decision being challenged and the amount in dispute.
Section 37 of Act 915 recognises four categories of tax assessments: self-assessments filed by taxpayers; pre-emptive assessments issued where GRA believes revenue is at risk; adjusted assessments resulting from changes to self-assessments; and assessments issued by the Commissioner-General where a taxpayer fails to file a return or GRA considers a submitted return incorrect.
Regardless of the category, taxpayers who believe an assessment is wrong have a statutory right to challenge it.
Objecting to the Commissioner-General
Section 42 of Act 915 makes an objection to the Commissioner-General the compulsory first step in resolving a tax dispute. A taxpayer cannot bypass this process and proceed directly to the Independent Tax Appeals Board (ITAB) or the courts.
An objection must be submitted in writing within 30 days of notification of the tax decision. The Commissioner-General may extend this period where an application is made before the original deadline expires. Taxpayers should therefore act promptly rather than wait until the deadline has passed.
The objection must clearly identify the decision being challenged, state the grounds of objection, explain the relevant facts and legal arguments, indicate the amount the taxpayer considers payable and provide supporting documentation.
A general assertion that an assessment is excessive is insufficient. The taxpayer must demonstrate why the decision should be reconsidered.
Another critical requirement is the payment obligation under Section 42(5), commonly known as the pay-now-argue-later rule.
For import duties and taxes, taxpayers must pay all outstanding taxes, including the full amount in dispute, before the objection can be entertained. For other taxes, including income tax and Value Added Tax (VAT), the requirement is payment of all outstanding taxes, together with 30 per cent of the disputed tax.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this provision in Amo-Hene v. Commissioner-General, GRA (2022). The Court reasoned that the requirement does not deny taxpayers’ access to justice because amounts paid may be refunded or credited if the taxpayer succeeds.
Once an objection has been lodged, the Commissioner-General has 60 days to issue a decision. The objection may be allowed in full, allowed in part or disallowed. Where no decision is issued within that period, the taxpayer may treat the objection as disallowed and proceed to appeal.
Importantly, taxpayers are entitled to only one objection to a tax decision. In Seadrill Ghana Operations Ltd v. Commissioner-General (June 3, 2026), the Supreme Court clarified that a revised objection decision does not create a fresh right to object.
Continued correspondence or meetings with GRA do not automatically extend the appeal period. Once an objection decision is issued, the appropriate next step is to appeal within the statutory deadline rather than continue submitting objection letters.
In my experience, taxpayers sometimes lose otherwise meritorious cases because they fail to follow the correct legal procedure within the prescribed timeframe.
Appeal to the Independent Tax Appeals Board
The establishment of ITAB under the Revenue Administration (Amendment) Act, 2020 (Act 1029), which amended Section 44 of Act 915, represents an important reform in Ghana’s tax dispute resolution system.
Before this reform, taxpayers dissatisfied with decisions of the Commissioner-General proceeded directly to the High Court, a process that could be expensive, time-consuming and procedurally demanding, particularly for small businesses.
ITAB was introduced as an independent, less adversarial intermediate appellate body to provide a more accessible avenue for resolving tax disputes before they reach the courts.
Although initially inaugurated in January 2023, the Board remained non-functional until preparations for its activation gathered momentum in late 2025. The Minister of Finance announced its operationalization on November 13, 2025, with full activation planned for January 2026.
A taxpayer dissatisfied with an objection decision must appeal to ITAB within 30 days of receiving that decision.
The appeal is initiated by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Executive Secretary of the Board, together with the relevant tax decision, the original objection and the Commissioner-General’s objection decision. GRA is given an opportunity to respond before the Board considers both sides and delivers its determination.
ITAB provides an important layer of independent scrutiny outside GRA and offers the potential for more specialised and accessible dispute resolution.
However, an appeal to the Board does not automatically suspend tax collection or enforcement. Where enforcement action is imminent, taxpayers may need to apply for a stay of execution or other appropriate relief.
Appeals to the courts
Where a taxpayer remains dissatisfied with ITAB’s determination, Section 45 of Act 915 provides for an appeal to the High Court within 30 days of receiving the Board’s decision.
The procedure is governed by Order 54 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47). The appeal proceeds by way of rehearing on the record. The appellant must file a Notice of Appeal stating the grounds of challenge and attach the relevant decisions of the Commissioner-General and ITAB.
The High Court may confirm, vary or set aside the Board’s decision, or remit the matter to ITAB for reconsideration.
A party dissatisfied with the High Court’s determination may pursue a further appeal to the Court of Appeal and, where the applicable legal requirements are satisfied, to the Supreme Court.
These appellate mechanisms ensure that administrative tax decisions remain subject to judicial oversight and that disputes can ultimately be examined within Ghana’s broader legal framework.
Other remedies available to taxpayers
Beyond formal objections and appeals, taxpayers may pursue other remedies depending on the circumstances.
One is judicial review, through which a taxpayer may approach the High Court to challenge unlawful administrative action. Prohibition may be sought where GRA acts outside its statutory powers, while certiorari may be used to quash an unlawful decision.
Judicial review is not a substitute for the statutory appeal process. It is generally appropriate where there are grounds to establish that GRA has exceeded its jurisdiction, acted unlawfully or breached the principles of natural justice.
Settlement discussions also provide an opportunity to resolve disagreements, particularly during the objection stage. Early engagement can clarify disputed issues and prevent unnecessary escalation into costly proceedings.
Additionally, the Commissioner-General has discretion under the law to waive or reduce penalties and interest where circumstances justify such relief. Taxpayers may demonstrate reasonable cause, including reliance on professional advice or errors not attributable to them.
These remedies reinforce the principle that effective tax administration must combine enforcement with fairness, engagement and accountability.
Five lessons for taxpayers and advisers
Drawing from my experience at GRA, taxpayers and their advisers should observe five important principles.
First, keep track of statutory deadlines. The 30-day objection period, 60-day period for an objection decision and subsequent 30-day appeal periods are critical. Missing them can seriously undermine a taxpayer’s case.
Second, comply with payment requirements. The 30 per cent payment requirement for taxes other than import duties and taxes, and the full payment requirement for import duties and taxes, must be understood before an objection is submitted.
Third, prepare one comprehensive objection and appeal when necessary. Repeated correspondence after an objection decision does not replace a formal appeal.
Fourth, maintain proper records. Invoices, contracts, VAT returns, bank statements, tax returns and audit correspondence provide essential evidence when challenging assessments.
Fifth, engage early and constructively. The objection stage establishes the foundation of the dispute. Taxpayers should present clear arguments, provide supporting evidence and seek professional advice where necessary.
Towards fairer and sustainable tax administration
Ghana’s tax dispute resolution framework seeks to balance the State’s responsibility to mobilise revenue for development with taxpayers’ rights to fair administrative treatment and access to justice.
The process is clear: objection to the Commissioner-General, appeal to ITAB, appeal to the High Court and, where applicable, further appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
The reforms introduced through Act 1029 and subsequent judicial clarification have strengthened the framework by providing greater structure and certainty in resolving tax disagreements.
Ultimately, an effective tax system is not one in which GRA is always presumed right or taxpayers automatically prevail. It is one in which both parties understand their obligations, respect the law and have access to transparent procedures for resolving disagreements.
For taxpayers, understanding these procedures is essential to protecting their rights and meeting their obligations. For GRA, respecting those rights is equally important to building public confidence, encouraging voluntary compliance and strengthening domestic revenue mobilisation.
That is the foundation of fairer, more accountable and sustainable tax administration in Ghana.
By: Elsie Appau-Klu Esq
Elsie Appau-Klu, Esq., is Technical Advisor to the Commissioner-General of the Ghana Revenue Authority. She chairs the National Modified Taxation Scheme Committee and coordinates the Sustained Tax Education Programme.
