The reasons why the supreme court dismissed the e-levy injunction application, the reasons of the court were based on these grounds, the reasons of the court given the grounds were as follows:
The nature of the reliefs sought by the Applicants, Haruna Iddrisu, and 2 others in the substantive matter. The inconvenience or loss to be suffered includes refunding the numerous tax deductions.
• The nature of the law under attack
• The Public Interest and Welfare of Ghanaians.
The legal principle of presumption of regularity is enacted in the evidence decree based on its 2012 decision of Ransford France v electoral commission and AG, there is a presumption of regularity in administrative matters.
The E-levy Act being a public law, the Supreme Court is enjoined to presume that same was passed lawfully until otherwise determined.
The balance of hardship tilts in the favor of the State. Injuncting the law will hamper its implementation. If the substantive matter fails, GRA cannot go back to collecting taxes it could have collected under the law.
There are laws in place to ensure a refund to a taxpayer in event of excess payment. Thus, sums deducted can be refunded where the law is pronounced unconstitutional in the substantive matter.
The council were:
Applicants: Godwin Kudzo Tameklo with him, Seth Nyaaba, and Said Moomin.
Respondents: Godfred Dame (AG) with him,
Diana Asonaba Dapaa (Dep. AG), Alfred Tuah Yeboah (Dep. AG), and Dr. Sylvia Adusu (Chief State Attorney)