GOVERNMENT has received the green light from the High Court to go ahead with its plans for the TT Revenue Authority (TTRA), including the recruitment of staff.
On Monday, Justice Betsy Ann Lambert-Peterson dismissed the application of a customs officer to halt the operations of the TTRA.
On May 8, Terissa Dhoray filed the injunction application to stop the implementation of section 18 of the TTRA Act, which deals with the enforcement division of the TTRA.
The application contended this forces employees at the Inland Revenue Division and the Customs and Excise Division, who are most affected, to decide by August 1 if they wanted to join the TTRA, or not.
By legal notice on April 14, President Christine Kangaloo proclaimed certain sections of the TTRA with effect from May 1.
The injunction application sought to have section 18 stayed pending the hearing and determination of the constitutional claim, as well as an order suspending the date of operationalisation of the TTRA.
In her ruling, Lambert-Peterson said that the issues that arose in the case were neither frivolous nor vexatious. She also said Dhoray’s challenge to the validity of the TTRA Act had shown there were serious issues to be tried.
However, the judge said the granting of an injunction, at this stage, will have the effect of delaying the operationalisation of the authority and would stop its operations.
“I am satisfied that in the event that the claimant is successful in the substantive proceedings, all acts done in pursuance of section 18 will have no legal basis.
“As a consequence, the TTRA will have to cease performing the function of administering tax and customs law and the government will have to resume those functions. There would be a reversal of all the options exercised by public officers pursuant to section 18(2) and the public officers who exercise their option would remain in their substantive office. Where any of them are adjudged to have suffered loss or prejudice because of being forced to exercise an option, they would be entitled to compensation in damages.”
Lambert-Peterson also said after weighing the risks, she concluded that the State should not be restrained, even by interim relief, from exercising its statutory powers or doing its duty to the public at large.
She also said Dhoray did not show she would suffer irremediable harm if the injunction was not granted and to grant it now would likely do more harm than good since the State’s case appeared to be stronger than that of Dhoray’s.
Last Friday, Lambert-Peterson heard submissions from Dhoray’s attorney Anand Ramlogan, SC, and lead counsel for the State, Douglas Mendes, SC.
This Friday, she will set a timetable for hearing Dhoray’s substantive claim which challenges the constitutionality of the act and the issue of costs of the injunction application.
Ramlogan argued that Dhoray and other employees of the IRD and Customs were public officers and only the Public Service Commission had control over their appointments, dismissals or discipline. He said
