Retrospective VAT Registration in Zimbabwe: Legal Defenses, Input Tax Recovery on Bills of Entry and the 12-Month Prescription Rule
A look See.
In Zimbabwe’s tax administration framework, Value Added Tax (VAT) is governed primarily by the Value Added Tax Act [Chapter 23:12] and administered by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA). Under Section 23 of the VAT Act, any person carrying on a enterprise whose taxable turnover exceeds or is expected to exceed the statutory threshold (currently set by Parliament via the Finance Act) is under a mandatory statutory obligation to apply for VAT registration.
A frequent and contentious scenario arises when ZIMRA conducts a tax audit or compliance verification and discovers that a business exceeded the mandatory VAT threshold in prior years without registering. In response, ZIMRA exercises its statutory powers to register the taxpayer retrospectively—backdating the effective date of registration to the exact date the threshold was crossed (e.g., two or three years prior).
Upon backdating the registration, ZIMRA issues retrospective VAT assessments for all tax periods within that historical window. ZIMRA demands Output VAT on all historical taxable sales, accompanied by statutory penalties (often up to 100% under Section 66) and compound interest.
However, when the newly registered taxpayer seeks to claim Input VAT on goods imported during that same historical period—supported by official customs clearing documents (Bills of Entry / Form 21, customs receipts, and proof of payment)—ZIMRA frequently disallows the input tax deductions. ZIMRA relies on the 12-month limitation proviso in Section 15(2) of the VAT Act, asserting that any input tax claim where the underlying Bill of Entry or tax invoice is older than 12 months is legally prescribed and time-barred.
This article provides an in-depth legal, statutory, and jurisprudential analysis of this administrative conflict. It examines whether a taxpayer registered retrospectively can lawfully claim input tax on historical Bills of Entry, how the 12-month rule applies in retrospective scenarios, the statutory relief mechanisms under Section 15(3)(a), and the constitutional and common law defenses available under Section 68 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) and the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28].
1. Statutory Framework Governing VAT Registration and Input Tax
To evaluate the legal position, one must analyze the interplay between registration, input tax entitlement, and statutory time limits within the Value Added Tax Act [Chapter 23:12].
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ VALUE ADDED TAX ACT [CAP 23:12] │
├──────────────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Section 23: Mandatory Registration │ Section 6: Imposition of VAT │
│ • Threshold crossed = Liable │ • VAT charged on local supplies │
│ • Registration backdated to liability│ and importations of goods │
├──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Section 15(1) & (2): Input Tax │ Section 15(2) Proviso: 12-Month Rule │
│ • Deduction of input tax incurred to │ • Input tax barred if claimed >12 │
│ produce taxable output │ months from tax period/invoice date│
├──────────────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Section 15(3)(a): Pre-Registration Goods & Capital Assets │
│ • Special deduction for input tax on goods acquired/imported prior to │
│ registration and held on hand at effective date │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
A. Mandatory Registration under Section 23
Section 23(1) mandates that every person who carries on an enterprise and whose total value of taxable supplies exceeds the prescribed threshold in any 12-month period must apply to the Commissioner-General for registration as a registered operator.
Under Section 23(4), if the Commissioner-General determines that a person was liable to be registered from a past date, the Commissioner shall register that person with effect from that past date. From that effective date onward, the person is deemed by law to have been a “registered operator.”
B. Imposition of VAT on Importations under Section 6
Section 6(1)(b) imposes VAT on the importation of goods into Zimbabwe by any person. When goods enter Zimbabwe through customs, import VAT is calculated on the Value for Duty Purposes (VDP) plus any applicable customs duties:
Taxable Import Value = VDP + Customs Duty + Other Statutory Levies
Import VAT Paid = Taxable Import Value × VAT Rate (e.g., 15.5%)
This tax is assessed at the port of entry via a Bill of Entry (Form 21) and paid directly to ZIMRA’s Customs and Excise Division before the goods are released.
C. Definition and Deduction of Input Tax under Section 15
Section 2 defines “input tax” as VAT paid by a registered operator:
- On the supply of goods or services made to him by another registered operator; or
- On the importation of goods by him under Section 6(1)(b).
Section 15(1) provides the core mechanism of VAT:
VAT Payable / Refundable = Output Tax – Input Tax
VAT is designed as a consumption tax on the net value added at each stage of the supply chain. It is not intended to be a cumulative or cascading tax on gross receipts.
D. The 12-Month Prescription Rule: Proviso to Section 15(2)
The central statutory bottleneck is found in the proviso to Section 15(2) of the VAT Act, which states:
“Provided that no deduction of input tax shall be made in terms of this subsection in respect of any supply or importation after the expiration of twelve months from the end of the tax period in which the supply or importation occurred, or the tax invoice or bill of entry was issued…”
ZIMRA routinely uses this proviso to disallow input tax claims on Bills of Entry that were issued more than 12 months prior to the date ZIMRA actually performs the retrospective audit or processes the historical returns.
2. The Practical Dilemma: Unilateral Output Back-Assessment vs. Disallowed Input Tax
When ZIMRA performs a retrospective VAT registration, a profound economic and legal asymmetry occurs:
ZIMRA RETROSPECTIVE AUDIT
│
┌──────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
OUTPUT TAX ASSESSED INPUT TAX CLAIMED
(Backdated 3 Years) (Bills of Entry 3 Years Old)
│ │
▼ ▼
ZIMRA Demands 100% Output ZIMRA Invokes Proviso:
+ 100% Penalty + Interest "Barred by 12-Month Rule"
│ │
└──────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────┘
▼
LEGAL & FINANCIAL PARALYSIS
(Gross Taxation on Revenue)
The Conflict Manifested
- Output Tax: ZIMRA calculates 15% Output VAT on 100% of gross revenue earned over the past 2–3 years, treating every sale as an exclusive-of-tax or inclusive-of-tax supply.
- Input Tax Disallowance: The taxpayer presents valid Bills of Entry showing that millions of dollars in Import VAT were already paid to ZIMRA Customs when importing the inventory sold to generate that revenue.
- ZIMRA’s Defense: ZIMRA argues: “You were not registered when you imported the goods, and even if you are registered now, those Bills of Entry are more than 12 months old. The 12-month proviso in Section 15(2) bars you from claiming them.”
This approach transforms VAT from a value-added tax into an illegal gross turnover penalty tax.
3. Legal and Constitutional Defenses Against Disallowance of Input Tax
Taxpayers subjected to retrospective VAT registration have strong statutory, constitutional, and common law grounds to challenge ZIMRA’s disallowance of input tax on historical Bills of Entry.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ FOUR PILLARS OF LEGAL DEFENSE │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 1. The Principle of Net Tax Liability & Scheme of the VAT Act │
│ • VAT is a tax on value addition, not gross revenue. │
│ • Retrospective registration must apply symmetrically to both Output and │
│ Input. │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 2. The Legal Maxim: Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia │
│ • The law cannot compel the impossible. A taxpayer cannot submit a VAT │
│ return before ZIMRA assigns a VAT number. │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 3. Pre-Registration Goods & Inventory: Section 15(3)(a) │
│ • Express statutory allowance for input tax on goods acquired prior to │
│ registration and held on hand. │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 4. Constitutional Administrative Justice (Section 68 & AJA Cap 10:28) │
│ • Unreasonable, administrative actions that create absurdities are │
│ ultra vires and void ab initio. │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Defense 1: The Principle of Net Tax Liability and Symmetrical Backdating
When ZIMRA exercises its discretion under Section 23(4) to backdate registration, it creates a legal fiction: the taxpayer is deemed to have been a registered operator throughout the retrospective period.
Under tax law principles, ZIMRA cannot backdate the taxpayer’s obligations (paying Output VAT) without backdating the taxpayer’s rights (deducting Input VAT).
- The Statutory Scheme: Section 15(1) explicitly defines tax payable as Output Tax minus Input Tax. An assessment under Section 31 that calculates Output Tax while completely erasing Input Tax incurred in producing that exact output violates the statutory formula of Section 15(1).
- Symmetrical Calculation: If the tax period is backdated to January 2023, then for the tax period of January 2023, the taxpayer was deemed to be a registered operator. The Bill of Entry issued in January 2023 fell within that tax period. Therefore, relative to the backdated tax period, the claim is contemporaneous, not expired.
Defense 2: Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia (The Law Does Not Compel Impossibilities)
A fundamental principle of statutory interpretation and natural justice is lex non cogit ad impossibilia—the law does not force a person to do something that is impossible to perform.
- The Practical Impossibility: Prior to ZIMRA issuing a VAT registration number, it was legally and technically impossible for the taxpayer to submit a VAT 7 Return or claim input tax on any Bill of Entry. ZIMRA’s electronic portal (TaRMS) blocks unregistered entities from lodging VAT returns.
- Application: ZIMRA cannot penalize a taxpayer for failing to claim input tax within 12 months when ZIMRA’s own administrative framework made it legally impossible to lodge the claim during that period. The 12-month clock under Section 15(2) can only rationally begin to run when the taxpayer possesses the legal capacity to file a return—i.e., upon the formal issuance of the registration notice.
Defense 3: Pre-Registration Inventory Relief under Section 15(3)(a)
Even if ZIMRA resists symmetrical backdating under Section 15(2), Section 15(3)(a) provides an explicit statutory remedy for goods acquired prior to registration.
Section 15(3)(a) provides that where a person becomes a registered operator, they may claim an input tax deduction equal to the tax paid on:
“goods… imported by him… prior to the date of his registration, where such goods are held on hand at the effective date of registration.”
Key Operational Rules for Section 15(3)(a) Claims:
- Condition: The goods or capital equipment must have been imported prior to registration and held in stock (inventory) or utilized as fixed assets on the effective date of registration.
- Valuation: The input tax claim is calculated based on the lower of the cost or market value of the goods on hand.
- Application to Retrospective Cases: If ZIMRA backdates registration to 1 January 2023, the “effective date of registration” is 1 January 2023. Any stock imported prior to 1 January 2023 and held on hand on that date qualifies for an input tax claim under Section 15(3)(a).
Defense 4: Constitutional Administrative Justice (Section 68 of the Constitution)
Section 68(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe guarantees every person the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable, proportionate, and procedurally fair.
CONSTITUTIONAL CHECKPOINT
│
┌──────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
PROPORTIONALITY TEST REASONABLENESS TEST
Is backdating Output VAT while Does disallowing paid Import VAT
disallowing paid Import VAT create an absurd financial penalty
proportionate? NO. unintended by Parliament? YES.
│ │
└──────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────┘
▼
VIOLATION OF SECTION 68 CONSTITUTION
(Action is Ultra Vires & Void)
Disallowing input tax on valid, verified Bills of Entry where ZIMRA itself collected the import VAT at the border creates an unjust double-taxation outcome:
- ZIMRA collected Import VAT when the goods entered the country.
- ZIMRA collects Output VAT on the full retail price when the goods are sold.
- ZIMRA refuses to credit the Import VAT paid against the Output VAT.
This results in ZIMRA double-dipping on the same commercial stream. In Econet Wireless Zimbabwe Ltd v Commissioner-General ZIMRA, courts affirmed that administrative actions that lead to absurd, manifestly unjust, or irrational consequences violate Section 3 of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] and are liable to be set aside on judicial review.
4. Analysis of the 12-Month Rule Mechanics and Statutory Exceptions
To successfully navigate an audit or objection, practitioners must understand how the 12-month rule operates mechanically.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ COMPUTATION OF THE 12-MONTH PRESCRIPTION │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Standard Rule: │
│ 12 Months = Date of Bill of Entry ────► Expiration of 12 Calendar Months │
│ │
│ Retrospective Exception (Taxpayer Argument): │
│ 12 Months = Effective Date of Notice ──► Starts upon formal VAT Allocation │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
A. Statutory Starting Point
Under the proviso to Section 15(2), the 12-month window is measured from:
- The end of the tax period in which the supply or importation occurred; or
- The date the tax invoice or Bill of Entry was issued.
B. The Difference Between Local Invoices and Bills of Entry
It is crucial to distinguish between local tax invoices and import Bills of Entry:
| Feature | Local Tax Invoice | Importation Bill of Entry (Form 21) |
| Counterparty | Local Supplier | ZIMRA Customs & Excise Division |
| Verification | Requires supplier verification | Direct ZIMRA internal record (Asycuda World) |
| Tax Pre-payment | Paid to supplier (who remits to ZIMRA) | Paid directly into ZIMRA’s account at border |
| Audit Risk | Risk of fictitious invoice | Zero risk of non-payment; ZIMRA holds the cash |
Because ZIMRA Customs already received the import VAT on the Bill of Entry, ZIMRA cannot claim prejudice or revenue loss if the taxpayer deducts that import VAT against retrospective Output VAT.
5. Judicial Precedents & Comparative Jurisprudence
Tax courts in Zimbabwe and South Africa (which shares a similar Roman-Dutch common law base and VAT statutory structure) have established clear principles regarding retrospective VAT registration and administrative equity.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ KEY JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS │
├───────────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Case Citation │ Core Ratio Decidendi │
├───────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Makarudze & Anor v ZIMRA │ Administrative power must be exercised with │
│ (2015) ZLR │ procedural fairness and statutory integrity.│
├───────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ CSARS v Komatsu Southern │ VAT is a tax on net value added. Arbitrary │
│ Africa (Pty) Ltd (SCA) │ disallowance of input tax destroys the │
│ │ statutory scheme of the VAT Act. │
├───────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Metcash Trading Ltd v CSARS │ The mechanics of VAT require matching │
│ 2001 (1) SA 1109 (CC) │ input tax to output tax to prevent illegal │
│ │ gross turnover taxation. │
├───────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ MacFoy v United Africa Co. │ An administrative action that violates │
│ [1961] 3 All ER 1169 │ legal principles is a nullity ab initio. │
└───────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────────┘
1. The Scheme of VAT: Metcash Trading Ltd v CSARS 2001 (1) SA 1109 (CC)
The Constitutional Court analyzed the fundamental architecture of Value Added Tax, holding that VAT is structured as a self-assessment tax based on a continuous credit-input mechanism. The court affirmed that output tax and input tax are two sides of the same coin; an authority cannot selectively enforce output tax obligations while systematically repudiating input tax credits generated in the same commercial operations.
2. Matching Principle: CSARS v Komatsu Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd
The South African Supreme Court of Appeal held that determining VAT liability requires a direct, objective linkage between the goods imported/acquired (input tax) and the taxable supplies produced (output tax). Denying input tax credits on legitimate imports creates an artificial tax liability disconnected from commercial reality.
3. Procedural Fairness in Retrospective Action: Makarudze & Anor v ZIMRA 2015 (1) ZLR
The High Court of Zimbabwe ruled that where ZIMRA exercises statutory powers retrospectively, it must adhere strictly to principles of administrative fairness. An exercise of administrative discretion that imposes retrospective burdens without granting corresponding statutory entitlements is ultra vires and legally invalid.
6. Comprehensive Case Scenario & Calculation Matrix
To illustrate the financial impact of legal defenses against ZIMRA’s administrative stance, consider the following practical case study.
Scenario Parameters
- Business Name: Apex Industrial Machinery Ltd.
- Turnover Threshold Crossed: 1 January 2023.
- Audit Date / Registration Issued: 1 February 2026 (Backdated 3 years to 1 January 2023).
- Total Gross Historical Sales (2023–2025): $2,000,000.
- Total Importations (Bills of Entry 2023–2025): $1,200,000 VDP.
- Import VAT Paid at Border (Form 21s): $180,000 (at 15.5%).
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ FINANCIAL IMPACT MATRIX │
├──────────────────────────────────┬──────────────────┬───────────────────────┤
│ Calculation Element │ ZIMRA Stance │ Taxpayer Legal Stance │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────┤
│ Gross Output VAT (15%) │ $300,000 │ $300,000 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────┤
│ Input VAT Allowed (Bills of │ $0 │ $180,000 │
│ Entry >12 Months Disallowed) │ (Disallowed) │ (Allowed) │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────┤
│ Net Principal Tax Due │ $300,000 │ $120,000 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────┤
│ 100% Penalty (Section 66) │ $300,000 │ $120,000 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────┤
│ Interest (Estimated) │ $100,000 │ $40,000 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────┤
│ TOTAL LIABILITY DEMANDED │ $700,000 │ $280,000 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────────┤
│ FINANCIAL SAVINGS / VARIANCE │ ──── │ $420,000 (60% SAVINGS)│
└──────────────────────────────────┴──────────────────┴───────────────────────┘
By successfully challenging the disallowance of input tax on historical Bills of Entry, the taxpayer reduces their total exposure from $700,000 to $280,000—a massive $420,000 reduction.
7. Strategic Step-by-Step Roadmap for Taxpayers Facing Retrospective VAT Audits
When ZIMRA issues a notice of retrospective VAT registration and disallows historical Bills of Entry, tax practitioners should follow this structured roadmap.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ STEP 1 │
│ Document Reconciliation & Asycuda Audit Trail │
│ (Gather all Form 21s, Customs Receipts, & Bank Proofs)│
└────────────┬────────────────────────┬───────────────────┘
│ │
▼ ▼
┌────────────────────────┐┌───────────────────────────────┐
│ STEP 2 ││ STEP 3 │
│ Pre-Registration Stock ││ Re-cast Retrospective Returns │
│ Audit (Sec 15(3)(a)) ││ Symmetrically (Period-by- │
│ Reconcile opening stock││ Period Output vs Input) │
└────────────┬───────────┘└────────────┬──────────────────┘
│ │
└────────────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ STEP 4 │
│ Formal Objection under Section 32 of VAT Act │
│ (Citing Constitutional Fairness, Lex Non Cogit, & Net │
│ Tax Liability Principles) │
└────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ STEP 5 │
│ Application for Suspension of Payment (Section 36) │
│ & Appeal to Special Court for Income Tax / High Court │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Step 1: Comprehensive Documentation Reconciliation
Compile an inventory of all customs clearance documentation for the retrospective period:
- Bills of Entry (Form 21) issued by ZIMRA Customs.
- Customs Receipts confirming payment of Import VAT.
- Asycuda World Release Orders and Assessment Notices.
- Bank Statements / Telegraphic Transfers matching the customs payments.
Step 2: Conduct a Pre-Registration Stock Audit (Section 15(3)(a))
Reconstruct the inventory on hand as of the backdated effective registration date:
- Prepare stock sheets showing raw materials, trading stock, and capital assets imported prior to the effective date and still on hand.
- Calculate the import VAT associated with that stock to lodge a primary or alternative claim under Section 15(3)(a).
Step 3: Recast Retrospective Returns Period-by-Period
Do not accept a single lump-sum assessment. Demand that ZIMRA prepare or accept recasted returns for each specific 2-month tax period throughout the retrospective window:
- For each tax period (e.g., Jan/Feb 2023), match the Output VAT from sales against the Input VAT on Bills of Entry issued during that same 2-month period.
- This demonstrates that relative to each backdated tax period, the input tax claims are contemporaneous.
Step 4: Lodge a Formal Notice of Objection under Section 32
Within 30 days of receiving ZIMRA’s assessment, file a formal Notice of Objection under Section 32 of the VAT Act:
- Ground 1 (Procedural Nullity): The assessment violates Section 15(1) by failing to assess net tax liability.
- Ground 2 (12-Month Rule Inapplicability): The 12-month rule cannot apply during a period when the taxpayer was legally unable to file returns (lex non cogit ad impossibilia).
- Ground 3 (Section 15(3)(a) Relief): Alternatively, the input tax is allowable under pre-registration inventory rules.
- Ground 4 (Constitutional Violation): Disallowing paid import VAT violates Section 68 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the AJA.
Step 5: Apply for Suspension of Payment and Court Appeal
Under Section 36 of the VAT Act, filing an objection does not automatically suspend the obligation to pay (“pay now, argue later”). Therefore:
- Submit an urgent application to the Commissioner-General under Section 36 for a Suspension of Payment pending the objection.
- If the objection is disallowed, lodge an appeal with the Special Court for Income Tax or the High Court of Zimbabwe within 21 days.
8. Summary of Legal Grounds and Taxpayer Defenses
| Legal Issue | ZIMRA Administrative Position | Taxpayer Legal Defense | Statutory / Constitutional Authority |
| Output VAT Back-Assessment | Assessed retrospectively from threshold date. | Accepted, provided Input VAT is symmetrically allowed. | Section 23(4) VAT Act |
| Input VAT on Bills of Entry >12 Months Old | Disallowed under 12-Month Proviso. | Proviso does not apply where registration was backdated and return filing was impossible. | Proviso to Sec 15(2); Lex non cogit ad impossibilia |
| Import VAT Already Paid at Border | Ignored during tax audit. | Disallowing paid Import VAT causes unconstitutional double taxation. | Section 68 Constitution of Zimbabwe |
| Historical Goods Held in Stock | Ignored. | Fully deductible as pre-registration inventory. | Section 15(3)(a) VAT Act |
| Gross vs. Net Taxation | Assesses Output VAT on 100% gross revenue. | VAT is statutorily restricted to net value addition. | Section 15(1) VAT Act; Metcash v CSARS |
9. Conclusion and Policy Recommendations
Retrospective VAT registration in Zimbabwe places businesses at significant financial risk when ZIMRA attempts to backdate Output VAT liabilities while disallowing Input VAT credits on historical Bills of Entry.
However, ZIMRA’s reliance on the 12-month prescription rule in retrospective scenarios is legally vulnerable. As established by the statutory provisions of the Value Added Tax Act [Chapter 23:12], the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28], and Section 68 of the Constitution:
- VAT is a tax on net value added, not a gross turnover penalty. Retrospective registration must be applied symmetrically to both Output and Input tax.
- The 12-month rule cannot bar input tax claims when ZIMRA’s own administrative framework rendered it legally impossible for the taxpayer to claim the tax within that window (lex non cogit ad impossibilia).
- Section 15(3)(a) provides statutory protection for input tax paid on goods and capital assets imported prior to registration and held on hand.
- Disallowing Input VAT that was paid to ZIMRA Customs at the border constitutes arbitrary and unconstitutional double taxation.
Practical Counsel for Affected Taxpayers
Taxpayers facing retrospective VAT registration should immediately organize all historical Bills of Entry (Form 21) and customs payment receipts, perform a detailed stock reconciliation under Section 15(3)(a), and lodge a formal legal objection asserting their constitutional rights under Section 68. Protecting procedural and substantive fairness ensures that automated and retrospective tax collection remains strictly subject to the Rule of Law.
