GRA appeals court ruling quashing Mohamed’s $799.8M luxury-car tax

The Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) has appealed a Demerara High Court ruling concerning Hana Mohamed’s 2020 Ferrari 488, challenging Justice Gino Persaud’s decision to quash the Authority’s tax assessment and restrain it from taking enforcement action against the vehicle.

The appeal also relates to the dispute involving Bibi Mohamed’s 2023 Rolls-Royce Cullinan, with the tax assessments for the two vehicles totalling $799,807,731. The dispute arose from efforts by the GRA and police last year to seize two luxury vehicles-a used 2020 Ferrari 488, registration PAD 5000, and a 2023 Rolls-Royce Cullinan, registration PAE 5000. The vehicles were located at the residence of United States (US)–sanctioned and criminally indicted businessman Azruddin Mohamed, who has since become Leader of the Opposition.

The Notice of Appeal, filed on August 11, 2026, contends that Justice Persaud “erred in law and in fact” when he quashed the GRA’s tax assessment and granted the relief sought by Hana and Bibi.

The Authority is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside and reverse the High Court order, dismiss the judicial review application and discharge the injunction granted against it. In Hana Mohamed’s case, the disputed assessment was $479,743,489 on her 2020 Ferrari 488. The GRA is challenging the High Court’s decision to quash that assessment and prevent the Authority from seizing or detaining the vehicle or pursuing forfeiture proceedings. Among its grounds of appeal, the GRA argues that the High Court failed to properly consider the statutory remedies available to Mohamed following the assessment of taxes.

The Authority contends that the amount of taxes due should have been addressed through an appeal under Sections 20 and 21 of the Customs Act, rather than through judicial review proceedings. The GRA is also challenging the High Court’s approach to its enforcement powers under Section 209 of the Customs Act. It argues that the judge was wrong to find that the Authority was not entitled to seize the vehicle after taxes lawfully demanded had not been paid or secured. The GRA says the provision allowed it to take possession of the vehicle and pursue forfeiture and condemnation proceedings to recover the taxes.

The Authority further argues that Justice Persaud failed to appreciate that the decision challenged before him was “lawful, proper, and within jurisdiction.” It also contends that the judge either applied the wrong principles governing judicial review or failed to correctly apply those principles.

The GRA in its appeal also said that the judge also failed to properly consider the material evidence and submissions presented on its behalf, resulting in a decision that was “against the law, contrary to the evidence, and therefore unsustainable.”

The appeal also challenges Justice Persaud’s findings concerning the conditions attached to the re-migrant concession. The GRA argues that the judge erred in finding that the conditions imposed by the Authority were “arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, irrational, unlawful and ultra vires the Customs Act.”

According to the Authority, the terms of the concession were contained in correspondence from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the GRA. It argues that the judge failed to find that the applicant had breached those terms. The GRA further contends that the relevant letters “effectively constituted a contract” under which the re-migrant concession was granted on the basis that the Mohameds performed the specified conditions. The Authority also argues that Justice Persaud failed to properly consider Section 36 of the Customs Act, which it says contained provisions intended to restrict the use of the benefit of the re-migrant concession. It maintains that there was a factual or prima facie breach of the concession and that the Commissioner General acted lawfully in determining that a breach had occurred and requesting that the Mohameds show cause why the concession should not be set aside.

The GRA is also challenging the judge’s consideration of dealings between the Commissioner General and third parties, arguing that those matters should not have been used as a basis for comparison in support of the judicial review application. The appeal follows Justice Persaud’s rulings which also affected the disputed $320,064,242 tax assessment concerning Bibi Mohamed’s 2023 Rolls-Royce Cullinan. In that matter, the High Court quashed the assessment and the requirement for the vehicle to be surrendered to the GRA’s Law Enforcement and Investigative Division.

The court also granted a permanent injunction preventing the Authority from seizing or detaining the Rolls-Royce or instituting forfeiture and condemnation proceedings in relation to the disputed assessment. The GRA is seeking to have the High Court’s orders, including the costs awarded against it, reversed. It is also asking the Court of Appeal to dismiss the judicial review application and award costs in its favour. Justice Persaud ordered the GRA to pay $750,000 in costs to each both Hana Mohamed and Bibi Mohamed, meaning $1.5 million in total. The payments were ordered to be made by August 13, 2026.

The Notice of Appeal was filed by Attorney-at-Law Sanjeev Datadin on behalf of the GRA, while the Mohameds were represented in the High Court proceedings by Attorneys-at-Law Siand Dhurjon and Damien DaSilva.