Facts:

The appellant is a law firm carrying on the business of legal practice in Bauchi State, Nigeria. The respondent is a Federal Government Agency responsible for tax administration, assessment and collection. The respondent made a demand on the appellant for the remittance of value added tax (VAT) collected from clients on its behalf. The appellant denied liability and filed an originating summons against the respondent at the Federal High Court, Bauchi Division, in which it sought the determination of questions bordering on whether it is a business venture by virtue of the provisions of the Value Added Tax Act and as such required to register and remit value added tax the respondent; and whether a legal practitioner falls under the category of persons required to render value added tax returns. The appellant also sought to know whether the respondent had the powers to serve on it letters of demand requesting remittance of VAT.
The appellant sought declarations that it is not a taxable person within the contemplation of the Value Added Tax Act liable to charge, collect and remit VAT to the respondent and that the letters of demand from the respondent are irregular and of no legal effect. The appellant also sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondent, its agents or privies from making any demand on her for the remittance of VAT. After hearing the parties, the trial court ruled in favour of the respondent and dismissed the suit of the appellant. Dismissing the suit, the trial court held that the appellant is a taxable person within the contemplation of the Value Added Tax Act and under obligation to register with the respondent, charge its clients value added tax, to collect same and remit to the respondent. The court further held that the respondent was right to have made a demand on the appellant for the remittance of VAT.
The appellant was dissatisfied and filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Jos Division urging the court to reverse the trial court. One of the issues for determination is whether the trial court was right to have held that the appellant is a taxable person and not exempted from remitting VAT to the respondent.