HGP Nightly News – The Guyana Revenue Authority is fighting back against a High Court ruling that wiped out nearly $800 million in taxes imposed on Hana Mohamed and Bibi Mohamed and prevented the attempted seizure of two luxury vehicles.
The GRA has taken the matter to the Court of Appeal, asking that the July 2026 decision of Justice Gino Persaud be overturned.
At the heart of the dispute are a 2020 Ferrari 488, registered PAD 5000, and a 2023 Rolls-Royce Cullinan, registered PAE 5000, both of which the tax authority and police had attempted to seize last year from the residence of US-sanctioned businessman and Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed.
The GRA’s appeal challenges the High Court’s findings on the way it enforced conditions attached to remigrant concessions and its decision to quash tax demands totalling G$799.8 million.
The authority argues that the judge made errors of law and fact when he quashed the taxes and that the Commissioner General had authority to act when the conditions of a remigrant concession were allegedly breached.
According to the Notice of Appeal, the GRA is also arguing that the concession letters effectively created an agreement between the parties and that provisions of the Customs Act, including sections 36 and 209, were intended to restrict how the concessionary benefit could be used and provide a basis for enforcement.
The tax authority wants the Court of Appeal to reverse Justice Persaud’s orders, dismiss the judicial review applications, lift the injunctions preventing the seizure of the vehicles and award costs to the GRA. It is also seeking to have the G$750,000 in costs awarded to each respondent by the High Court set aside.
But the Mohamed side is not simply defending the original ruling.
Attorney S.A. Dhurjon has filed a cross-application on behalf of Hana Mohamed, arguing that the High Court itself got part of the tax calculation wrong.
The defence contends that section 36 of the Customs Act was incorrectly applied to the alleged breach of the residency requirement and that any taxes arising from a breach should have been calculated on a pro-rata basis, taking into account the portion of the concession period remaining when the alleged breach occurred.
The defence’s position is that the Commissioner General is required to exercise statutory discretion proportionately rather than automatically imposing the full amount of duties.
The Court of Appeal is therefore being asked to consider not only whether the GRA was entitled to impose the taxes, but also how any liability should be calculated if a breach of the concession conditions is ultimately established.
The original High Court proceedings arose after the GRA sought to recover G$479,743,489 from Hana Mohamed in connection with the Ferrari and also sought to have the vehicle surrendered to its Law Enforcement and Investigative Division.
Justice Persaud found that the acting Commissioner General had failed to properly consider Mohamed’s explanations for her temporary absences from Guyana. The court described that failure as unreasonable, arbitrary, irrational, unfair and unlawful.
The tax demand was consequently quashed and the matter sent back to the Commissioner General for reconsideration. The court directed the GRA to properly assess Mohamed’s reasons for being outside Guyana and determine whether those reasons were reasonable and consistent with her status as a resident.
The second case involved Bibi Mohamed and the Rolls-Royce.
In that matter, the court quashed a G$320,064,242 tax assessment and permanently restrained the GRA from seizing or forfeiting the vehicle. The agency was also ordered to pay Bibi Mohamed G$750,000 in legal costs.
Justice Persaud further struck down two conditions that the GRA had been attaching to remigrant duty-free concessions — requirements that the concession vehicle be used solely by the applicant as her primary means of transportation and that the owner personally report to the GRA every six months with the vehicle and its documents for inspection.
The court found those conditions to be beyond the authority granted by the Customs Act.
The GRA is now asking the appellate court to revisit those conclusions, while the defence is seeking to preserve the core of the High Court’s decision and challenge the judge’s treatment of how taxes should be calculated.
The appeal puts nearly G$800 million back at the centre of a dispute that is about more than two luxury vehicles. It raises questions about how far the GRA can go in enforcing the conditions attached to duty-free concessions, how much discretion the Commissioner General has when a concession holder gives reasons for an alleged breach, and whether the tax authority’s enforcement powers are properly grounded in legislation.
