Second Reading THE REVENUE TRIBUNAL BILL (No. XII of 2025) Order for second reading read.

Hon. Attorney General! (3.41 p.m.) The Attorney General (Mr G.P.C. Glover, SC): Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move that the Revenue Tribunal Bill (No. XII of 2025) be read a second time. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I shall keep my remarks short and focused. This Bill aims neither to widen tax powers nor to invent new causes of action. It does one thing only; it replaces the Assessment Review Committee currently provided for in section 18 of the Mauritius Revenue Authority Act where the Revenue Tribunal and this, with a clear purpose in mind, rationalising and modernising the process with the necessary checks and balances in order to have a more just, accessible and comprehensive system. That shift may look modest on paper, yet it answers concrete short comings that practice has made impossible to ignore. I will outline those shortcomings, explain how the Bill deals with each and show why a new legislation, instead of simple amendments, was the only satisfactory route. The Assessment Review Committee, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, created in 2006, has indeed performed valuable service. Its composition placed experienced barristers in the chair and paired them with members drawn from accountancy, economics and taxation. It could sit in flexible panels and from 2022, it even gained power subject to the consent of the parties to reconstitute a panel that lost one of its members before the case is over. None of that is being discarded. The new Tribunal still has the Public Service Commission as appointing authority for its legal members and preserves the requirement that lay members bring specialised financial expertise and remain independent of the public service or the MRA but we needed to go further. Experience has revealed four structural obstacles which the existing Committee, because of its very nature as an emanation of the MRA’s statute, could not overcome. First, institutional independence – the main function of the Assessment Review Committee is to hear and determine representations made by any person who is aggrieved by a decision, determination, notice or claim of the Director-General of the MRA or of the Registrar-General. However autonomous and unbiased the Assessment Review Committee may be, it remains conceptually part of the authority whose decision it reviews. Therefore, in view of the quasi-judicial nature of its functions, it is considered more appropriate for such functions to be discharged by a full-fledged Tribunal along the same lines as other existing administrative tribunals such as the Employment Relations Tribunal, the Environment and Land Use Appeal Tribunal and the Public Bodies Appeal Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal will be a stand-alone body established by its own Act with its own Secretary and staff working under the Chairperson’s administrative control. That separation is not cosmetic. It speaks to public confidence, particularly among foreign investors accustomed to seeing revenue disputes being handled outside the revenue agency’s statutory framework. It puts the new Tribunal at par with other quasi-judicial bodies which I referred to earlier, which are entrenched in the minds of the citizens as checks and balances to the exercise of executive power. Second, procedural certainty – as per section 20, sub section (3) of the MRA Act, the ARC ‘endeavoured’ to fix hearings within three months and to issue its decisions within six. Such good intentions too often slipped, sometimes because complex interlocutory matters consumed the calendar. The Bill transforms these aspirations into legal obligation. Clause 7 now mandatorily requires the Tribunal to schedule a preliminary hearing within 120 days of lodging and deliver its determination within 90 days of the close of evidence; a period which may be extended only in exceptional circumstances and only with the consent of all parties. The timelines are thus shorter, clearer and enforceable and practitioners will be free to plan and taxpayers will budget around a reliable procedural calendar. Third, the scope of appeals – under the present Act, a party dissatisfied with the decision of the ARC may go to the Supreme Court only on a question of law via an outdated process of asking the ARC to state a case. That narrow gateway, means that error of fact for example, an arithmetical slip or a mistaken reading of a ledger cannot be corrected on appeal. Clause 11 removes that artificial constraint. Appeals will follow the ordinary civil route used for District Court judgements, allowing the Supreme Court to examine both fact and law. The change neither widens nor narrows tax liabilities; it simply ensures that mistakes, in the appreciation of facts, of whatever nature, may be rectified. Accordingly, an appeal to the Supreme Court will now also be assessed on any factual evidence adduced before the Revenue Tribunal. Fourth, alternative dispute resolution – the current system relied on separate Alternative Tax Dispute Resolution Panels. Those panels have been now repealed and the Bill closes the gap by weaving mediation into the Tribunal’s own fabric. Where both parties ask for it, the Chairperson will refer the matter to a mediation panel consisting of a legal member of the Tribunal and, where appropriate, another member. Any agreement reached will be recorded as a final, binding determination and, if none is reached within 90 days, the case reverts to the Tribunal without prejudice. The taxpayer therefore gains a voluntary confidential avenue that can conserve both resources and goodwill. The Bill also codifies matters that until now depended on implication or practice. Clause 9 states expressly that the burden of proving that an assessment is wrong, or that a tax has in fact been paid, lies on the person disputing the charge. Clause 12 creates specific offences for refusing to attend or for giving false evidence, with penalties of up to Rs100,000 and imprisonment. Those provisions do not invent new duties; they place existing judicial expectations beyond doubt. Conversely, the Bill abandons what is no longer needed. The Key Performance Indicator regime, whereby the Minister of Finance sets annual targets for the Committee, is not reproduced. The independence of the Tribunal means that it must enjoy freedom from ministerial control and notation, subject to the requirements of the legislation. A word on transition now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Clause 18 provides that every matter already opened before the Committee, as it stands today, and still pending on commencement day of this legislation will be taken over by the Tribunal exactly where it stood at the time. Parties will not have to re-file, and fees already paid will be carried forward. In short, no litigant will be disadvantaged by the structural changes. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to recap in broad strokes, this Bill contains four clusters of clauses. First, the machinery itself: clauses 1 and 2 supply the preliminaries; clauses 3 to 5 create the Tribunal, set its membership and staffing. Second cluster, the hearing process: clauses 6 to 10 preserve the 28-day appeal window, lay down full procedural instructions with firm timelines, take evidence on oath unlike before the ARC, build in mediation, place the burden of proof on the appellant, and spell out the Tribunal’s power to confirm, amend or quash a revenue decision. Third cluster, supervision and enforcement: clause 11 opens appeal on fact and law to the Supreme Court, clauses 12 and 13 set offences for obstruction and give members statutory immunity, while clauses 14 and 15 authorise regulations and rules of court. Finally, the fourth cluster, consequential matters: clause 16 repeals the ARC from the MRA Act, clause 17 updates ten related enactments, clause 18 moves pending ARC cases straight to the new Tribunal, clause 19 deals with commencement, and the Schedule lists every revenue law that will now fall within the Tribunal’s reach. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, fair taxation implies fair adjudication. The design before the House retains what has worked: a professional bench, specialised members, flexible panels. And it corrects what has not worked: institutional dependence, elastic timelines, an unduly narrow right of appeal, and the absence of a modern mediation track. It does so through an instrument that does not make the Tribunal a subsidiary of the authority it reviews. That is the entire logic of the Bill. It is a small step in the vast modernisation process which we are bringing to consecrate the rule of law and make justice more accessible and efficient. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after the Bill was introduced to this House, we received some further proposals from members of the Assessment Review Committee, some of which we have taken on board, and some of which we did not as we deemed them superfluous. They are mainly with regard to some cross referencing in other legislation and to bring clarity in some provisions of the Bill. We have already circulated the amendments, which are only technical in nature, and I will move for these amendments at Committee Stage of the Bill. With these words, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I commend the Revenue Tribunal Bill to the House. The Prime Minister rose and seconded.

Hon. Narsinghen! (3.54 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade (Mr H. Narsinghen): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I am intervening today to support the commend the Revenue Tribunal Bill. This is a transformative piece of legislation that heralds a new era of fairness, efficiency and transparency in the resolution of tax disputes in our Republic. In fact, it is to be noted that there has been a backlog of cases. This Bill, as rightly pointed out by the hon. Attorney General, aligns tax dispute resolution with international standards as prescribed by the OECD, other international organisations and other countries where we have borrowed best practices. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for too long, taxpayers, businesses and other stakeholders have voiced legitimate concerns about the complexities, delays and procedural shortcomings inherent in the current Dispute Resolution Framework under the Assessment Review Committee. The Bill today responds to those concerns with conviction and clarity. In fact, during the electoral campaign, the Prime Minister and many Members present have also promised to address genuine criticisms which were addressed to our taxation system. We still remember the criticisms. So, in a society, a fair and delicate balance has to be struck between the interest of taxpayers’ and the State, that is, the society at large. I should recall the jurist and philosopher, Roscoe Pound, who explained the idea of jural postulates in a given society and how we, as policymakers, must reconcile competing interests in a society. This is what we are doing today. This is what has been done by the Attorney General and the present Government, and this work has to be fully commended. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today, we have a modern and independent tribunal. First and foremost, you will see that Section 3 of the Bill establishes the Revenue Tribunal as a fully independent statutory body. As pointed out by the hon. Attorney General, we have a stand- alone legal framework, distinct from the MRA Act. This is very important because this will dispel any doubts on the lack of strict separation of powers and duties, and will do away once for all with bias. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is not only bias, but also the perception of bias. This is very important. So, unlike the ARC, which was nested within the MRA framework, under sections 18 to 21 of the MRA Act, we have a distinct entity. It is to be noted that the Tribunal shall be composed of legally qualified and experienced professionals. With the new legislation, the Chairman should be a barrister reckoning ten years of experience and the vice-Chairman should reckon five years of experience. Now, experience is of essence. You know very well, hon. Members, that when you start in the legal profession, you have to grapple your way up. It takes on average around five years to know where you want to go. I consider that somebody with ten years’ experience is very important. Possibly – I am just suggesting – we could have added five years of general experience, but also five years of relevant experience in the field of taxation. You will understand that somebody can be an outstanding barrister in criminal matters, but not necessarily in taxation. Taxation and tax law is something which is very complex. So, it is only after that period that we can focus on specific areas. The new section represents a monumental shift towards institutional impartiality and judicial independence, as well as the hiring a chairperson with considerably more legal experience. Another important point, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you will see there is the element of timeliness and efficiency and one of the most commendable reforms introduced by the Bill is the imposition, this time, of statutory deadlines. You will notice that under section 7(7), the Tribunal must fix a preliminary hearing within 120 days of the appeal being lodged and render its decision within 90 days of the close of the hearing. This is, in fact, a far cry from the previous regime under the MRA Act where delays of six months or even more, were the norms and deadlines were only, I would say, aspirational at best and not mandatory, and there was too much flexibility as pointed out by the hon. Attorney General. This is, in fact, not appropriate for the business world. At the same time, what we noticed, there was only a best endeavour standard. So, there was a sort of illusion and many people could exploit the system and use dilatory tactics, unfortunately, and this is why we ended up having such a very important backlog of cases. What we also noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Tribunal is not – this time you will find out, it is very important to put that on record – a toothless quorum as it used to be. Under section 7(5), this time it is vested with what I would qualify as court-like powers, that is, the ability to summon witnesses, compel production of documents, administer oaths, which is very important, unlike the current law. So, this was not so under the purview of the actual law which we have. Now, such powers, you will understand, ensure that the proceedings are conducted rigorously, with due regard to rule of law, and also, evidential standards. It is very important to note, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that frivolous and vexatious revenue appeals under the law may be now dismissed outright by virtue of section 10(5). Also, it is very important to note that this time the Tribunal may award costs with appropriate sanctions, which is in a way a strong deterrent to abusive litigations. But what is also important as pointed out by the hon. Attorney General, there has to be a fairness in procedure and evidence and a critical safeguard is introduced in section 9 which provides that documents or evidence not disclosed at the objection stage shall be inadmissible unless the party shows good cause, and this promotes procedural discipline and deters last minute litigation ambushes. Moreover, you will see also – and this is a very important point – the burden of proof has been expressively codified this time, as pointed out by the Attorney General. While the burden of proof generally lies on the taxpayer, you will note that this time, section 9(4) rightly shifts the burden to the MRA in specific matters of income tax and VAT avoidance under section 90 of the Income Tax Act and also under section 36A of the VAT Act, respectively. Another very important point which has been touched by the hon. Attorney General is the innovation through mediation. One the most progressive element in that – and we welcome the changes introduced by this Bill – is the complete overhauling of mediation which is now governed by section 8 of the new Bill. You will find that under the old regime, in section 21T of the MRA Act, mediation was limited to only one meeting and it was almost impossible when it was conducted by the Chairperson and the vice-Chairperson. Both officers of the MRA and tax representatives could not conclude settlements in a single day, which was impossible as I mentioned, given the complexity and complex cases of tax cases and given the amount of calculations and documents that are involved when revising a tax determination. This has been putting undue pressure – you would agree with me – on both taxpayers and tax officers. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, by contrast you will see that the Revenue Tribunal Bill enables parties to jointly opt for mediation at any point before a hearing. In fact, a 60-day period is granted for meaningful engagement and a panel can be constituted for neutrality. Agreements reached are final, binding and non-precedential, this is important to note. Most importantly, the time afforded for mediation under this new system allows both parties to reflect, consult and negotiate meaningfully, reducing adversarial tension – very important in such litigation – and encouraging a resolution. This approach, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, strengthens taxpayers-Revenue Authority relations, reduces litigation costs and also restores confidence in dispute resolution process. You will also note that this time we have stronger appeals and finality, and under the current law only errors of law may be appealed to the Supreme Court. And as also pointed out by the hon. Attorney General, this time, through section 11, we have a more comprehensive appellate process aligning with procedural safeguards applicable to decisions of District Courts in civil matters. Now, as you know and as pointed out already, taxpayers can appeal on both points of law and facts. This is very essential in tax cases. It is now a proper appeal and not a mere review. Also, it is to be noted there is also enforcement and sanctions which have beefed up, which did not exist. And to ensure compliance, you will see that section 12 introduces penalties for obstruction of justice, including fines of up to Rs100,000 and imprisonment up to two years. This in fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, reinforces the tribunal authority and protects the integrity of the process. Precautions have also been taken to make the process a seamless transition and there is continuity as pointed out by the Attorney General. The Bill is not, in fact, a bulldozer, it is a carefully engineered reform and you will see that section 18 provides for the seamless transition of all pending ARC cases to the Tribunal. As a conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will say the Bill does not merely abolish the Assessment Review Committee, it replaces it with a purpose. It restores faith in tax justice – very important for this Government, justice – it empowers both the taxpayer and the State, it delivers predictability which is important in a legal system, impartiality and also speed. In a country committed to upholding good governance – we have been hammering on this – and investor confidence, – we have been hammering on that – this reform is not only welcomed, it is necessary. Therefore, the Assessment Review Committee has served, it is true, taxpayers for two decades but the hybrid nature being an executive sort of tribunal where the executive has been poking its nose to a certain extent, it is important that, this time, the Revenue Tribunal is replacing the architecture with an institution that is clearly separated from the revenue raising arm of Government. Endowed, this time, with genuine judicial muscles, discipline by enforceable time limits, and very important, open to consensual settlement. It is also important that we have taken all the care in order to cater for SMEs and larger businesses. Once again, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Government is fulfilling its promises, that is, to ease the lot of taxpayers, small businesses and also the common man. So, in a way, it is creating a very conducive business environment. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you. Hon. Attorney General! (4.09 p.m.) The Attorney General (Mr G.P.C. Glover, SC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is not just about institutional adjustment. It forms part of a much wider transformation that this Government has pledged to undertake, a transformation anchored in the vision laid out in the Government Programme 2025-2029, under the banner ‘A Bridge to the Future’. The creation of the Revenue Tribunal is a concrete step in restoring the independence and credibility of public institutions, a core pillar of our Government Programme. By transferring quasi-judicial tax adjudication from a body rooted in the Revenue Authority’s own statute to a fully autonomous tribunal, we are progressing on our commitment to rebuild democracy and ensure justice through institutional reform. This reform also speaks directly to the programme’s ambition to make justice more accessible, swift and fair, which has been one of the central tenets of my role as Attorney General. With clear timelines, transparent appeal rights, mediation options, the Tribunal will serve as a modern, responsive and accountable mechanism for resolving disputes, not in years but in months. These are precisely the characteristics demanded in the programme’s judicial reform agenda, which includes new specialised courts and simplified appeal procedures. The Revenue Tribunal embodies these objectives. Moreover, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this legislation dovetails with the public sector reform drive announced in the Government Programme. A more performing public service must be matched by modern, legal institutions that deliver justice efficiently and equitably. Just as the economy is being rebuilt on a foundation of fair contribution and fiscal consolidation, the Tribunal provides the guarantee that the fair process and independent recourse will be available to all, especially the SMEs and ordinary taxpayers who carry the weight of national recovery. In short, the Revenue Tribunal is not an isolated reform; it is an investment in better governance. It is a visible and practical expression of the Government’s promise to restore trust, ensure fairness and turn broad principles of reform into tangible rights for all citizens. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE (The Deputy Speaker in the Chair) THE REVENUE TRIBUNAL BILL (NO. XII OF 2025) Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 (Interpretation) Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill.”

Mr Chairperson, I move for the following amendment in clause 2 – “in clause 2, by deleting the definition of “Registrar-General” and replacing it by the following definition – “Registrar-General” – (a) means the officer appointed as Registrar-General under the Registrar- General Act; and (b) includes an authorised officer defined as such under section 16 of the Land (Duties and Taxes) Act;” Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 (Proceedings of Tribunal) Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill.”

Mr Chairperson, I move for the following amendment in clause 7 – “in clause 7, by repealing subclause (10);” Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 (Burden of proof) Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill.”

Mr Chairperson, I move for the following amendment in clause 9 – “in clause 9(3), by deleting the words “section 28(2)(b) or 36(1) of the Land (Duties and Taxes) Act or section 33(4) of the Registration Duty Act” and replacing them by the words “section 28(3F) of the Land (Duties and Taxes) Act in so far as it relates to section 28(2)(a) and (b) or section 17(3) of the Registration Duty Act”;” Amendment agreed to. Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 (Decision of Tribunal) Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill.”

Mr Chairperson, I move for the following amendment in clause 10 – “in clause 10 – (i) in subclause (3), by deleting the words “, subject to subsection (4),”; (ii) by deleting subclause (4), the existing subclauses (5) to (8) being renumbered as subclauses (4) to (7); (iii) in the newly renumbered subclause (6), by inserting, after the words “Tribunal shall”, the words “, except where a decision is given orally in presence of all parties,”;” Amendment agreed to. Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 (Appeal to Supreme Court) Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill.”

Mr Chairperson, I move for the following amendment in clause 11 – “in clause 11 – (i) in subclause (1), by deleting the words “A person” and replacing them by the words “An aggrieved party”; (ii) in subclause (2), by inserting, after the words “no other grounds”, the words “, except with leave of the Supreme Court,”; (iii) in subclause (4)(b), by deleting the words “to the appeal” and replacing them by the words “to the appeal, and file return of service in the Registry of the Supreme Court”; (iv) in subclause (8), by deleting the words “section 36(1) of the Land (Duties and Taxes) Act, payment of the tax” and replacing them by the words “section 28(3F) of the Land (Duties and Taxes) Act, payment of the tax due under section 28(4A)(a)(ii) of that Act”; (v) in subclause (9), by deleting the words “in the manner provided by rules in respect of” and replacing them by the words “and determined as”;” Amendment agreed to. Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 12 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule Motion made and question proposed: “that the Schedule stand part of the Bill.”

Mr Chairperson, I move for the following amendment to the Schedule – “in the Schedule – (i) by deleting items 9 to 12 and replacing them by the following items – 9. Hotel and Restaurant Tax Act insofar as it relates to section 9 10. Income Tax Act insofar as it relates to section134 11. Income Tax (Country by Country Reporting) Regulations 2018 insofar as it relates to regulation 7A 12. Land (Duties and Taxes) Act insofar as it relates to sections 15A, 23, 24, 26A, 28(4) and 39(2) (ii) by adding the following new items – 13. Registration Duty Act insofar as it relates to section 17 14. Social Contribution and Social Benefits Act 2021 insofar as it relates to section 9 15. Value Added Tax Act insofar as it relates to sections 20D(6), 40(1) and 66(7)” Amendment agreed to. Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. The title and enacting clause were agreed to. The Bill, as amended, was agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with the Deputy Speaker in the Chair, the Deputy Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Revenue Tribunal Bill (No. XII of 2025) was read the third time and passed.

So, we break for 35 minutes. At 4.18 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 4.58 p.m. with the Deputy Speaker in the Chair.

Please be seated! Hon. Prime Minister!