PPC Zimbabwe, Zimra in $3 million tax wrangle 

Source: PPC Zimbabwe, Zimra in $3 million tax wrangle – NewsDay Zimbabwe December 11, 2017

CEMENT manufacturer, PPC Zimbabwe, has filed an urgent High Court chamber application seeking an interdict order to stop the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (Zimra) from garnishing its bank accounts over a disputed $3 million interest and cost liability claim.


 The cement company accused Zimra of seeking to illegally garnish its bank accounts despite them failing to provide a tax assessment report in terms of the Income Tax Act chapter 23:06.

In its urgent chamber application, PPC Zimbabwe submitted that Zimra was threatening to institute recovery measures despite the fact that the matter was still pending in court.

“Seeing the manifestly unlawful nature of Zimra’s threatened actions the applicant has filed out of this honourable court, a court application in which it seeks a declarator to confirm the legality of the respondent’s actions,” the company submitted.
“The applicant therefore seeks an order to prevent the respondent from instituting any recovery measures as threatened by it until such time as the applicant’s aforesaid court application has been finalised.”

According to the court documents, in 2009 following the dollarisation of the Zimbabwe economy, PPC Zimbabwe recorded an assessed loss of $3,5 billion after converting its ledger from Zimbabwean currency to United States dollars.

In 2013, Zimra then carried out an audit of PPC Zimbabwe’s tax affairs for the period covering 2009 to 2013. It is alleged after completion of the audit, Zimra queried the assessed loss which resulted in a protracted legal battle.

Around December 16 2013, both parties reached an agreement in respect of the assessed loss which was reduced to $1, 9 million. Following the reduction of its assessed loss, PPC Zimbabwe paid tax liability to the tune of $22 million.

However in November 2015, Zimra subsequently returned with a fresh demand saying the applicant should pay interest of the principal amount of $22 million and this demand ignited a fresh dispute between the parties.