Tuna ranchers lose bid against €220,000 tax

A tuna fish breeding company’s objection to having to pay nearly €220,000 under retroactive tax imposed on its past catches has been dismissed by a court because it was filed too late and under the wrong law.

In April 2016, Fish and Fish Co. Ltd had filed judicial proceedings against the Minister for Sustainable Development and Climate Change, and the Director General of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture objecting to the latter’s request, made in October 2015, that it pay €219,942.10 in retrospective taxes on tuna catches.

The tax was introduced in 2015, levying €230 on every ton of tuna caught since May 2015.

The company had paid under protest, having been particularly riled by an article in the legal notice which, it said, stated that the department would withdraw essential services to non-paying companies.

It also filed a judicial letter in April 2016 asking for the amount to be refunded, arguing that the regulation was not within the scope of the powers granted by the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, because it had not been issued by the Minister.

“This was not a fee, but a tax,” the company argued, saying it was a well-established legal principle that new taxes cannot be retroactive in scope.

Legal representatives of the defendant minister and department had counter-argued that the plaintiffs had filed their action too late. 

In a decision handed down on Wednesday, the First Hall of the Civil Court presided by Judge Mark Chetcuti noted that the plaintiffs were challenging the power of the minister to issue the particular legal notice on the grounds that it was beyond the scope of his powers, also claiming that the legal notice itself was issued in this way.

The court disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument that the procedural rule of giving advance notice to government violated any of its rights, saying the failure by the company to abide by the rules of procedure could not be used as an excuse for its actions.

Furthermore, the request was made after the lapse of the 6 month period envisaged for judicial review specified by the article under which it had been filed. The case was dismissed, with costs, against the plaintiffs.