Case Digest Volume II July September 2022

CASE DIGEST
VOLUME II
July - September 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. UAP Old Mutual Uganda Insurance Limited V. Uganda Revenue Authority TAT 1
Application No. 47 Of 2019.
2. Mukisa Patrick Versus Attorney General & 25 Others CS 491 Of 2021 Mengo Chief 2
Magistrates Court.
3. Farid Meghani Versus Uganda Revenue Authority Civil Appeal No. 06 Of 2021 3
4. AFGRI Uganda Limited V. Uganda Revenue Authority, HCCA No. 35 Of 2022 4
5. Samona Ltd Versus Uganda Revenue Authority TAT No. 104 Of 2022 6
6. Magnet Construction Ltd Versus Uganda Revenue Authority MA. 86/2022 8
Arising from TAT Application No. 11 Of 2011.
7. Bbuule Muhammad Versus Uganda Revenue Authority TAT Application No. 26 9
Of 2021
8. Tecx Lubricants (U) Ltd Versus Uganda Revenue Application No. 11 OF 2021 10
9. SWT Tanners & Others V Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority Civil 12
Appeal 172 Of 2019
10. Uganda Railways Corporation Versus Uganda Revenue Authority, Court of 14
Appeal, Civil Appeal No. 104 Of 2019
11. Africa Renewal Ministries Limited Versus Uganda Revenue Authority TAT Misc. 16
Application No. 93 Of 2022.
12. Frank Babibaasa V. Uganda Revenue Authority High Court Civil Division. 18
13. Latigo Geoffrey Versus Uganda Revenue Authority Civil Appeal No. 56 Of 2021 19
14. Musoke Dan V. Uganda Revenue Authority; Jinja High Court, Civil Suit No 44/2017 21
15. Nile Teas (U) Ltd Versus Uganda Revenue Authority Miscellaneous Application 23
No. 036 Of 2022.
16. Vegol Limited V. Uganda Revenue Authority TAT No. 148 Of 2020. 24
17. Allied Beverages Company Limited V. Uganda Revenue Authority TAT No. 1 Of 26
2019 And Application 40. 0f 2021.
18. Colas East Africa Versus Uganda Revenue Authority TAT Application No. 40 Of 27
2022
19. Luwaluwa Investments Limited V. Uganda Revenue Authority TAT No. 39 Of 2021. 29
20. ATC Uganda Limited V. Uganda Revenue Authority High Court Civil Appeal 31
No.32 Of 2020
21. Richard Mwami Versus Uganda Revenue Authority TAT Application No. 45 Of 33
2021
22. Elgon Hydro Siti (PVT) Limited Versus Uganda Revenue Authority, TAT No. 125 34
Of 2019
23. Amatheon Agri Uganda Limited V. Uganda Revenue Authority TAT Application 36
No.7 Of 2021
24. Agaba Henry V. Uganda Revenue Authority TAT Application No. 83 Of 2021 37
25. British American Tobacco Limited Versus Uganda Revenue Authority TAT No. 62 39
Of 2019
26. Robert Asiimwe Akanga & Kalemba Stevens V. Attorney General, DPP & URA 40
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 007 & 008 Of 2022 (Consolidated)
Arising from Criminal Case No. 1 Of 2022
FOREWORD
FOREWORD
Uganda Revenue Authority is a Government Agency established through the Uganda
RevenueIn aAuthority
bid to deliver onAct CAP 196
our commitment of
to tax the Laws
education of Uganda
respective with
fields including a mandate
URA staff, to collect
lawyers, auditors,
and sensitization, Uganda Revenue Authority is accountants, tax scholars, tax students, our taxpayers,
revenuedelighted
and enforce taxation laws. In order
to publish Volume 1 of the Uganda Revenue
to ensure the fulfillment of our
and the general public. The principles therein offer a
mandate
to enforce tax Case
Authority laws through jurisprudence in good
Digest. Courtsguideof on law, we are delighted
new developments and how Courts to publish
the Volume II of the Uganda Revenue Authority and the(URA)
Tax AppealsCase Digest.
Tribunal have treated different
The URA Case Digest is a simplified summary of aspects of tax matters.
the decisions delivered by Courts of Law and the
Tax litigation has enormously evolved over the years with landmark judicial
Tax Appeals Tribunal in tax-related cases in Uganda. I am grateful to the entire team at Uganda Revenue
decisions involving the URA’s activities and
This specific volume covers decisions delivered in
operations being made. A number of
Authority, and in particular the Legal Services and
decisions have been delivered by Courts
the last quarter of the Financial Year 2021/2022. In and Tribunals
Board Affairs Department,since
Litigationthe establishment
Division in LSBA
of the Uganda Revenue Authority in 1991, however, this specific volume
summarizing the decisions, our main focus was on the Department and the Public and Corporate Affairs covers
decisions delivered in the first quarter of Division

tax issues as espoused by the Courts and Tribunal. The
the financial year of 2022/2023. (July
who worked tirelessly to ensure the successful
detailed decisions can be accessed on our website publication of the Inaugural URA Case Digest.
to September 2022).
www.ura.go.ug under Legal & Policy.
Patience T. Rubagumya (Mrs.)
FurtherWe
still, this
believe digest
this digest highlights
is a valuable addition tothe
the salient principles
Commissioner, of and
Legal Services taxBoard
lawsAffairs
that have
been adjudicated upon by
existing body of knowledge Courts
in tax-related and
issues. It Tribunals
Department and will serve as a guide for
will be relevant to a wide range of audiences in their September 2022
people from all walks of life, who seek to access decisions that apply to a tax
administration and tax matters as a whole.
EDITORIAL
My deepest and sincere appreciationCHIEF goes
EDITORto the extraordinary
Ibrahim Kibuuka Bbossa
CONTENT team at Uganda
Barbra Ajambo Nahone Kasibante
Revenue Authority, and in Assistant
particular thePublic
Legal Services and Board Affairs
TEAMDivision
Department, Litigation
Commissioner,
and the
Corporate
& Charlotte Katuutu
Public and Corporate Affairs Division
Affairs
for working diligently, professionally and efficiently, in &order

Synopsis of Tax Judgments to ensure
Rulings (September 2022) 3 that this
Volume is successfully published.
PATIENCE T. RUBAGUMYA (MRS.)

Commissioner,
December 2022.
i
EDITORIAL
It is with utmost pleasure and great pride that we publish the 2nd Volume of the
Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) Case Digest comprised of decided matters
for the period July to September 2022.
This digest features a summary of various decisions in regard to diverse tax

matters, that have been handled and decisions delivered by the Tax Appeals
Tribunal (TAT) and the Courts of Judicature in regard to the interpretation of tax
laws. Copies of the detailed decisions can be accessed on our website - www.
ura.go.ug under Legal & Policy.
We believe this digest shall be of great relevance to all legal practitioners, scholars,
URA staff, taxpayers and the public at large as it simplifies tax decisions while
pointing out pertinent issues as decided by the TAT and Courts of Law. This digest
therefore seeks to document all new developments in judicial jurisprudence in
cases involving the URA and to ensure that the general public is kept up to date
with all recent tax decisions.
Finally, I hereby extend my deepest gratitude to the entire URA team and in
particular the Legal Services and Board Affairs Department that has been
extremely instrumental in their concerted and unwavering efforts that were
geared towards ensuring the seamless and successful publication of this 2nd
Edition of the URA Case Digest.
“Developing Uganda Together”
MATTHEW MUGABI
Assistant Commissioner - Litigation
December 2022
ii
Stella Nyapendi Chombo
Ag. Commissioner,
EDITORIAL TEAM
Barbra Ajambo Nahone George Ssenyomo

Kasibante Ag. Supervisor Income
Manager Income Tax Tax Litigation
Litigation
Robert L. Wamala Andrew Odoch

Ag. Manager Public and Umahtete
Corporate Affairs Officer Corporate Brand
Management
iii
1
UAP OLD MUTUAL UGANDA

INSURANCE LIMITED VS UGANDA
REVENUE AUTHORITY
TAT APPLICATION NO. 47 OF 2019
Brief facts
The Applicant is engaged in the business of general insurance in Uganda.The

Applicant filed this Application contesting a tax assessment arising out of an
audit on the Applicant by the Respondent for the period 2015 to 2017 of UGX
1,304,246,005 comprising Income Tax, PAYE and interest.
The parties entered into a partial consent on 18th December 2020 resolving most
of the issues but the issue of “whether the Applicant is liable to pay additional
PAYE of UGX 330,699,609 for the period 2015 to 2017” was referred to the
tribunal for determination.
The Applicant employed Unit Managers whom it also labelled “super agents”
between 2015-17 who were paid remuneration in form of a retainer and
commissions.
The Respondent classified the above named unit managers as employees and
imposed PAYE on the individuals in issue totalling UGX 330,699,609.
______________________________________________________________________________
Issues for Determination

1. Whether the Applicant is liable to pay PAYE of UGX 330,699,609 assessed?
2. What remedies are available to the parties?
Tax Appeals Tribunal Decision

i). The individuals working as unit managers are subjected to a degree of
control which is sufficient to consider them as employees under section
2z(i) of the Income Tax Act.
ii). The level of financial risk the unit managers undertook was minimal to
be considered as independent contractors. The work method of the unit
managers was so integrated into that of the Applicant, that they would be
considered as employees.
iii). That though the unit managers were paid commissions which is not
1
ascertainable, the Applicant paid a telephone allowance of UGX 100,000
per month to the individuals, which is income under Section19 of the
Income Tax Act. The said payment was fixed and ascertainable making the
individuals employees under Section 2z(iii) of the income tax act.
MUKISA PATRICK VERSUS ATTORNEY

GENERAL & 25 OTHERS
CS 491 OF 2021 MENGO CHIEF MAGISTRATES

COURT
Brief facts
The Plaintiff sued the Attorney General, URA & 25 other Banks alleging that banks
which collect tax monies paid via assessment on behalf of URA, charge fees on
the tax assessment payments charges being paid by tax payers which charges
according to the plaintiff are supposed to be taken out of the consolidated fund.
He further alleges that the Attorney General and Bank of Uganda should prevail
over URA not to allow banks to charge tax payers. That as such, the continued
charging of fees (bank charges) by banks on assessments/tax paid to URA
amounts to fraud, negligence and abuse of trust on the part of the Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
Issues for determination
(i) Whether the Plaintiff’s suit was res judicata, did not disclose a cause
of action against URA, that Court was not vested with jurisdiction to
entertain the suit and that improper procedure was adopted when filing
the suit.
(ii) Remedies available to the parties?
Magistrates Court Decision

(i) Tax matters ought to the filed in the Tax Appeals Tribunal which has original
jurisdiction to hear tax cases.
(ii) Court is not vested with jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the same
was dismissed.
2
3
FARID MEGHANI VERSUS UGANDA

REVENUE AUTHORITY
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 06 OF 2021
Brief facts
The Appellant filed an Application to extend time within which to file an

application to review the Respondent’s Objection Decision.
The Applicant was issued with administrative additional tax assessments on

20th December, 2019 by the Respondent and the Applicant objected to the
assessment on 27th December, 2019. On 24th March, the Respondent issued its
objection decision disallowing the objection.
On 11th December, 2020 the Applicant filed an Application in the Tax Appeals
Tribunal seeking for orders that; the time for lodging the Application for review
of the taxation decision dated 24th March, 2020 be extended or enlarged.
The Tax Appeals Tribunal directed that the parties file submissions and this was
duly done.
On 29th January, 2021 the Tax Appeals Tribunal in its Ruling ordered that; the
Application for extension of time in which to lodge an application for review of
a taxation objection is dismissed with costs.
Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Tax Appeals Tribunal, the Appellant
lodged this Appeal to the High Court.
______________________________________________________________________________
Grounds of Appeal
1. That the Learned members of the Tribunal erred in law when they misapplied
the provisions of Section 16(1) (c), (2) and (7) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal
Act in MA No. 185 of 2020 in respect to time within which to apply for
extension of time;
2. The Learned members of the Tribunal erred in law when they wrongly
applied the provisions of Section 16 (1) (c) and (7) of the Tax Appeals
Tribunal Act in computing the time in which to apply for extension of time
in MA No. 185 of 2020.
3
3. The Learned members of the Tribunal erred in law when they did not apply
Rule 11(6) (b) and (c) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules when
determining MA No. 185 of 2020;
4. The learned members of the Tribunal erred in law when they failed to
take into consideration Government Directives having the force of law on
provisions of Section 16(1) (c), (2) and (7) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act
in MA No. 185 of 2020.
High Court Decision:

1. The Appellant did not show that the Tribunal depicted an unjudicial
exercise of discretion, leading to injustice and an unreasonable decision.
2. The High Court cannot interfere merely because of a difference of

opinion between it and the Tribunal, as to the proper decision to make.
3. The Appellant did not prove that the Tribunal made any material
specific error, i.e. an error of law, a mistake as to the facts, relying upon
an irrelevant consideration or ignoring a relevant consideration, or that
it gave inappropriate weight to such considerations. The decision
cannot be regarded as unreasonable or clearly unjust so as to attract the
inferred conclusion that it was erroneously made.
AFGRI UGANDA LIMITED VS. UGANDA

REVENUE AUTHORITY,
HCCA NO. 35 OF 2022 BEFORE JUSTICE

CORNELIA KAKOOZA SABIITI
Brief facts
AFGRI Uganda Limited is a company incorporated under the laws of Uganda, and
a subsidiary of AFGRI Services Mauritius, a company incorporated in Mauritius
with a shareholding of 99%.
The holding company was granting interest bearing loans to the Appellant. The
Appellant, in an associated party disclosure notice, disclosed to the URA that it
received interest bearing loans from AFGRI Mauritius Limited which were used
for the business operations of its subsidiaries from 2014- 2017.
Based on the disclosure, URA raised an issue to the effect that the interest
amounts on the loans that the Appellant acquires from the holding company
were withholding tax chargeable.
4
Subsequently URA issued an assessment of UGX 1,278,425,918 as Withholding
Tax on interest to which the Appellant objected and the Respondent issued
an objection decision where the Withholding Tax was revised to UGX.
912,934,373.58/=.
The Appellant filed an Application in the Tax Appeals Tribunal for review of
URA’s objection decision. URA opposed the application on the grounds that the
interest paid by the Appellant was not exempt from tax as alleged and that the
loan was not widely issued as envisaged under 83(5) of the Income Tax.
The Tax Appeals Tribunal held that the interest was liable to Withholding tax
and dismissed the Application. AFGRI filed an appeal in the High Court on the
following grounds;
1. The Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT) erred in law when it held that the expensing
of incurred interest in financial statements and income tax returns are
representations that the Appellant actually paid interest to AFGRI Services
Mauritius for the purposes of Sections 47(2) of the Income Tax.
2. That the TAT erred in law when it held that the Appellant was not entitled
to general damages because the Respondent was carrying out its statutory
duty diligently and taxes were due.
______________________________________________________________________________
High court Decision

i). Court noted that appeals are creatures of statute and as a matter of
fact, the court had a duty to determine whether the tribunal misapplied
or misapprehended the law or applied the law wrongly in arriving at its
decision.
ii). Since the burden of proof was on the Appellant pursuant to Section 26
of the TPCA, Section 102 and Section 58 of the Evidence Act, considering
the best evidence rule, there is no contention as to the authenticity of
the financial statements plus the annual returns, these reflect the true
financial position of the appellant, in these circumstances oral evidence
by the account cannot override documentary evidence that proved the
appellant’s correct financials at the time.
iii). The annual report of the Appellant showed that interest expenses were
deducted before tax was imposed hence the Appellant could not have
deducted for tax purposes, what was not incurred.
iv). The Appellant had failed to discharge their burden to prove that the
interest expenses were deducted before tax was imposed.
v). The Tribunal was right to hold that the Appellant actually recognized the
interest as expenses.
vi). URA’s actions were in accordance with its statutory mandate of collecting
5
all taxes and revenue and that since the Appellant ought to have remitted
the withholding tax, it was not entitled to any damages.
Court held that the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed the case with costs
to the respondent.
SAMONA LTD VERSUS UGANDA

REVENUE AUTHORITY
TAT NO. 104 OF 2022
Brief facts
In 2016, the Respondent (URA) conducted an audit on the Applicant for the
period July 2013 to June 2016 to establish the Applicant’s tax compliance and
confirmed a total tax liability of UGX. 2,177,262,827, being VAT of UGX. 344,783,864
and LED of UGX. 1,832,478,964.
The Applicant objected and URA requested the Applicant to avail information
but the same was never provided. URA issued an objection decision wholly
disallowing the objections and maintaining the assessments.
The Applicant filed TAT Application No. 77 of 2020 challenging the Objection
Decisions and the same was dismissed on 3rd March 2021 on account of non-
appearance of the Applicant. On 3rd May 2022, the Applicant filed this Application
challenging the same objection decisions.
When the instant application came up for hearing URA raised preliminary
objections as follows;
(i) That the instant application was an abuse of the process of the Tribunal;
(ii) That the Application is time barred;
(iii) That the Applicant had not paid 30% of the tax in dispute as required by
law.
______________________________________________________________________________
Issue for determination

Whether the instant application is an abuse of court process?
6
i). A comparison of the two applications shows that the tax periods are from
July 2013 to June 2016. The issues for which a decision is sought from the
Tribunal are almost the same.
ii). That Application No. 77 of 2020 relates to the same dispute as Application
104 of 2022. The Applicant first filed Application 77 of 2020 which was
dismissed for non- appearance of the applicant in March 2021.
iii). The Applicant ought to have filed an application for reinstatement within
a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notification of the dismissal
of its application under Section 25 (4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act.
Failure to do so is an abuse of Court process.
iv). It is trite law that timelines set by statute are matters of substantive law
and not mere technicalities and must be complied with. Though this
application does not show the date of service of the taxation decision,
the Applicant does not deny that the objection decision was made on 5th
September 2017.It merely argues that Article126(2) (e) of the constitution
requires substantive justice to be administered without the need to look
at time limits.
v). The tribunal stated that going by the date of 5th September 2017 as the
date of the objection decision implies that the Application is definitely
time barred. The pleadings in the Application do not show the date of
service of the taxation decision, which would mean that the application
is premature as there is no taxation decision appealable. Both ways, the
application is misconceived and should be stuck out.
vi). There was no evidence availed to prove that the Applicant applied for
extension of time to pay the 30% in installments. The Tribunal was therefore
unable to grant the prayer to pay 30% in installments.
7
6
MAGNET CONSTRUCTION LTD VERSUS

UGANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY MA.
86/2022 ARISING FROM TAT APPLICATION

NO. 11 OF 2011.
Brief facts
The Applicant contended that the award by the Tribunal in the main Application
where URA was ordered to refund UGX. 84,411,983 to the Applicant had accrued
interest to UGX. 791,085,659.57 which has not been satisfied despite several
reminders over the years.
The Applicant applied to attach the monies on the URA’s account to recover
the award and interest. The deputy Registrar declined to issue an order nisi and
dismissed the application hence this reference to the Tribunal.
______________________________________________________________________________
Whether the monies on the Respondent’s account can be attached to recover

the award and interest?

i). The Tribunal held that a garnishee is expected to appear before court to state
why the debt should or should not be realized. A decree absolute will be
given if it has been satisfied to court that these monies should be attached.

ii). The Tribunal cannot entertain an application that did not follow the procedure
set out in under the Civil Procedure Rules for garnishee. Tax liability if not
resolved in time can water down an amount in a court award. It is not tenable
to wait for 11 years to execute a court award. The URA stated that it utilized
it to offset the applicant’s liability of UGX. 248,865,312 in September, 2012.
iii). The registrar ought to have served URA with a notice to show cause before
entertaining the Application which hearing would have resolved what was
actually payable.
iv). The Application was not properly filed with a number of irregularities and
cannot be entertained, it was therefore dismissed with each party bearing its
own costs.
8
7
BBUULE MUHAMMAD VERSUS

UGANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY
TAT APLICATION NO. 26 OF 2021
Brief facts
The Applicant is an individual dealing in whole sale and retail of household goods
such as cooking oil with the main supplier BIDCO. The Respondent (URA) carried
out a return’s examination of the Applicant for the period July 2016 to June 2018.
On December 4th 2020, the Respondent raised additional assessments for Income
Tax of UGX 826, 249,515 and VAT of UGX 1, 351,197,257 due to a mismatch in the
Applicant’s sales declarations, purchases in his VAT and Income Tax returns and
the audited accounts. On December 15th 2020 the Applicant objected to the
additional assessments raised by the Respondent.
The Respondent reviewed the Applicant’s objection and maintained the

outstanding tax assessed for reasons that the Applicant did not provide
satisfactory documentary evidence to support his grounds of objection.
The Respondent raised a preliminary objection following failure of the Applicant
to pay 30 percent of the tax assessed or that part of the tax assessed not in dispute,
whichever was greater. The parties were directed to file written submissions.
______________________________________________________________________________
Whether the Applicant is liable to pay the 30%of the taxes objected to in
accordance with Section 15 of the TAT Act?

i). The issue of 30% was dealt with by the Supreme court in Uganda Projects
Implementation and Management Centre Vs. Uganda Revenue Authority,
Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1999 where the supreme
court held that the statutory requirement in the VAT Act which is similar
to Section 15 of the TAT Act, requiring a tax payer who has lodged a notice
of objection to an assessment to, pending final resolution of the objection,
pay 30% of the tax assessed or that part of tax assessed not in dispute,
whichever is greater is constitutional and did not infringe on the right to a
9
fair hearing. In Elgon Electronics vs UR HCCA 11 of 2007 Justice Geoffrey
Kirayabwire stated that the provisions of Section 15 (1) of the Tax Appeals
Tribunal Act are mandatory.
ii). The Applicant should first pay the 30% of the tax in dispute or that which
is not in dispute, whichever is greater and then argue.
iii). The Tribunal will be able to entertain all the Applicant’s arguments if he
has met the statutory requirements under Section 15 of the TAT Act. When
one acts contrary to a provision of a statute he acts illegally. A Tribunal like
court cannot entertain an illegality.
iv). Failure to comply with Section 15 renders one’s act illegal, making it difficult
for the Tribunal to entertain the Appeal.
v). Section 28 of the Tax Procedure Code Act provides for an Applicant to pay
installments. A tax payer should apply to the Commissioner under S. 28
(1) of the TPCA for extension of time to pay the 30% in installments. There
is no appeal against a refusal by the Commissioner General to pay 30% of
the tax in dispute in installments.
The preliminary objection was upheld and the main application dismissed with
costs.
TECX LUBRICANTS (U) LTD VERSUS

UGANDA REVENUE
APPLICATION No. 11 OF 2021
Brief facts
The Applicant carries on the business of importing lubricants in Uganda. On 11th
November 2020, the Applicant imported lubricants and made a self-assessment
of UGX 36,687,543.
The Respondent (URA) queried the Applicant’s self-assessment and issued an

assessment of UGX 118,362,443 as taxes on ground that the Valuation method
was not the correct one. The Applicant relied on the transaction value method
while the Respondent relied on the Fall back method.
______________________________________________________________________________
10
Issues for determination:
1. Whether the Applicant is liable to pay the tax assessed?

2. What remedies are available?
Preliminary Objection:
URA raised a preliminary objection that the Applicant’s Application for review
to the Tax Appeals Tribunal is time barred and ought to be dismissed with costs.
The Applicant filed this Application in the Tax Appeals Tribunal on 23rd February
2021 but ought to have filed the same by 6th February 2021 thus delaying by 17
days without any extension of time being granted by this Honorable Tribunal.
(i) On 25th August 2022, the Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT) agreed with the
Respondent’s preliminary objection and stuck out the Application for
having been filed out time.
(ii) However, TAT stated that it would also determine the matter on merit so
that in the event of an appeal of a preliminary objection, the matter is not
tried afresh.
(iii) The Respondent was justified in rejecting the transactional value but that
parties ought to have gone into consultation on how to apply method 2
and 3. The Tax Appeals Tribunal stated that though it may not believe that
the fall back method was the best method the Respondent ought to have
applied, the onus is on the Applicant to show that the Respondent ought
to have used another method.
(iv) The Applicant failed to discharge the burden that the Respondent ought
to have applied another method. The tribunal could not dismiss the
Application as it had already struck it out on a preliminary point of law.
Accordingly, the Application was struck out with costs to the Respondent.
11
9
SWT TANNERS & OTHERS v

COMMISIONER GENERAL, UGANDA
REVENUE AUTHORITY
CIVIL APPEAL 172 OF 2019
Brief facts:
The Appellants described themselves as corporate entities engaged in general
business undertakings within Uganda, being mainly the importation of rice from
Pakistan and other parts of the World.
In November 2007, URA issued a Practice Note clarifying that all imported rice
is considered to be unprocessed agricultural produce for purposes of the Value
Added Tax Act and it therefore falls under the provisions of the second schedule
which provides for exempt goods.
Following the enactment of the VAT (Amendment) Act 2014, which repealed
Paragraph 1 (f) of the Third Schedule to the VAT Act, which had zero-rated the
supply of cereals grown, milled or produced in Uganda, URA on 19th November
2014, issued Practice Notes URA/VAT/PN2/ 14, whereby the supply of both local
and imported rice was subjected to VAT of 18%.
Pursuant to the said Practice Note, URA communicated that from research
conducted, it had established that the supply of rice, which is ready for
human consumption does not fall within the provisions of Paragraph 1 (a)
of the Second Schedule to the Value Added Tax Act (exempt) nor does it
fall under the 3rd Schedule of the same Act (zero-rated) and therefore, the
supply attracted VAT at the rate of 18%. URA further directed that imported
rice was subject to VAT at the rate of 18% and thus revoked the Practice Note
of 14th November 2007.
On 18th December 2014, the Appellants filed HCCS No. 880 of 2014, against
the Respondent seeking declarations that the Practice Notes issued by the
Respondent on 19th November 2014 is not binding. That the 18% levy applies
only to rice products produced locally and processed in Uganda and that the
imposition of 18% VAT on all imported rice is arbitrary and unlawful, that the
value added does not exceed 5% of the total value of the supply. They also
sought for general damages and costs of the suit.
On 10th February 2016, the High Court determined the suit in favour of URA,
making the following findings; that the suit rice is processed and thus does not
fall within the exempt supplies in the 2nd Schedule of the VAT Act nor the exempt
imports in the 5th Schedule of the East African Community Customs Management
12
Act, and is therefore chargeable to 18% VAT. The suit was dismissed with costs
to the Respondent.
The Appellants being dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court instituted
an Appeal at the court of Appeal and also secured a stay of execution of the
High Court decision pending disposal of the Appeal.
______________________________________________________________________________
Grounds of Appeal
(i) The learned an honorable trial judge erred in law and fact hence he
misconstrued and misapplied the VAT Statute (as amended) to the
appellants imported rice thus coming to a wrong decision of dismissing
the suit.
(ii) The learned Honourable trial judge erred in law and fact when he construed
and applied the East African Community Customs Management Act and
the VAT Act in disregard of other laws, thus coming to a wrong decision.
(iii) The learned Honourable trial judge erred in law and fact when in his judgment
relied on the respondent’s calculations of DW1 based n untendered report
to show that the imported rice VAT value exceeds 5% thus coming to a
wrong decision in favour of the respondents, thus dismissing the suit.
(iv) The learned Honourable trial judge erred in law and fact in holding that
the suit imported ready to eat rice was processed rice subject to VAT an in
process, ignore the law relating to double taxation thus coming to a wrong
decision of dismissing the appellant’s suit.
(v) The learned Honourable trial judge erred in law and fact when he failed to
address his mind to the dictates of international treaties like the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which take precedence over internal law
in circumstances of this case thus coming to a decision that the subject
imported rice was chargeable with VAT whereas not thus wrongly
dismissing the suit, to the detriment of the appellants.
(vi) The learned Honourable trial judge erred in law and fact when he ignored
and /or omitted to fully address himself to the agreed fact that the suit
imported rice was a ready for consumption product requiring no further
processing, thus thereby coming to a wrong decision of holding to the
contrary that it was subject to VAT whereas not, thus wrongly dismissing
the appellant’s suit.
(vii) The learned trial judge erred in law holding that the suit imported rice was
subject to VAT of 18% when he relied on information provided by a website
which information is outside the realm of the law governing taxes, thus
coming to wrong decision of dismissing the suit.
(viii) The Honourable learned trial judge erred in law and fact when he failed to
13
properly weigh and evaluate evidence on record thus coming to a wrong
decision, of dismissing the suit.
Court of Appeal Decision:

i). The duty of a first appellate court is to reappraise the evidence on record
and draw its own inferences of fact.
ii). The Appellants commenced an ordinary suit in the High Court under the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. However, in the tax matters, the
statutory jurisdiction of the High Court is an appellate jurisdiction arising
from the Value Added Tax Act Cap 349 which deals with objections and
objection decisions of the Commissioner General pursuant to assessments.
iii). The law envisages a person who is dissatisfied with an assessment to lodge
an objection to the Commissioner General within 45 days under Section
33B in writing. Upon making an objection decision, where the taxpayer is
dissatisfied with the decision, he or she may appeal to the Tax Appeals
Tribunal under Section 33C of the VAT Act within 30days upon being
served with notice of the objection decision of the Commissioner General.
iv). The findings of the learned trial Judge were properly supported by the
Applicable laws (VAT Act and EACCMA) and that the issue of GATT was
a new question being raised only at Appeal and therefore the court could
not make a pronouncement having not been part of the dispute at the
High Court.
10
UGANDA RAILWAYS CORPORATION

VERSUS UGANDA REVENUE
AUTHORITY,
COURT OF APPEAL, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 104

OF 2019
Brief facts
The Appellant privatized its freight operations by way of a 25-year concession
to the concessionaire M/s Rift Valley Railways Uganda Ltd at a concession fee of
11.1% of the gross annual revenue for the leased assets on a quarterly basis.
The Appellant declared the concession fee as standard rated but on 30th July 2014,
applied to the Respondent to amend the VAT returns arguing that it erroneously
declared the concession fee as standard rated yet it believed the same was exempt.
On 11th September, 2020, the Respondent replied advising the Appellant that
concession fees payable by the concessionaire to the Appellant were standard rated
since they do not fall within the ambit of paragraph 1(f) of the second schedule.
14
On 20th October 2014, the Appellant applied for a private ruling under Section
80 of the VAT Act on whether concession fees are taxable or exempt under the
second schedule of the VAT Act.
On 29th October 2014, the Respondent ruled that basing on Sections 4(a), 18(1),
11(1) (b) of the VAT Act, the concession fees paid or payable by the concessionaire
to the Appellant is a supply of services and do not fall within the ambit of Section
19 and paragraph 1(f) of the second schedule to the Act and the Appellant is
required to account for VAT on fees paid by the concessionaire.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Respondent, the Appellant lodged an appeal

in the High Court vide HCCA No. 38 of 2014, seeking orders that the concession
was a lease of immovable property which is exempt from VAT under Schedule II
of the VAT Act and costs of the Appeal.
The Learned Trial Judge dismissed HCCA No. 38 of 2014 holding that the
concession was not exempt from VAT. The Appellant instituted an Appeal in the
Court of Appeal.
______________________________________________________________________________
Grounds of appeal
1. The trial Judge erred in law and in fact in holding that payments made by
Rift Valley Railways to the Appellant were in respect of freight services.
2. The trial Judge erred in law and in fact in holding that the lease between
the Appellant and the Concessionaire did not take form of those exempt
from tax as outlined in Paragraph 1(f) of the 2nd Schedule of the VAT Act.
3. The trial Judge erred in law and in fact by failing to evaluate the evidence
and thereby came to a wrong decision.
Court of Appeal Decision

i). The Appellant had no right of Appeal to the High Court and the High Court
had no appellate jurisdiction in the matter. The purported Appeal to the
Court of Appeal originated from an appellate decision which was issued
without jurisdiction.
Basing on the above grounds, the Appeal was struck out with no orders as to
costs.
15
11
AFRICA RENEWAL MINISTRIES

LIMITED VERSUS UGANDA REVENUE
AUTHORITY
TAT MISC. APPLICATION NO. 93 OF 2022.
Brief facts
The Applicant is a company limited by guarantee and a non-governmental
organization incorporated the laws of Uganda.
The Applicant was issued with a withholding tax assessment of UGX. 54,000,000
on 07/07/2020 in respect of a purchase of property comprised in LRV 3026
Folio 8 Plot 120 Main Street, Iganga approximately 0.231 Hectares. The Applicant
objected to the assessment on 10/07/2020 and the respondent issued objection
decision on 07/10/2020 disallowing the objection.
The Applicant appealed the objection decision and an appeal decision was
issued on 15th December 2021 confirming the earlier tax liability.
The Applicant being dissatisfied with the decision and being out of time to file
application, the Applicant is seeking the Tribunals leave to extend time in which
to file an application.
______________________________________________________________________________
Issues
1. Whether this Application is competent.
2. Whether there is sufficient cause for grant this application.

i). It is trite law that time limits must be strictly complied with. Time limits set
by statutes are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities and
must be strictly complied with.
ii). The Tribunal has to exercise discretion. The purpose of a court in exercising
its discretion is to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from accident,
inadvertence or excusable mistake or error but not to assist a person
who has deliberately sought by evasion or otherwise to obstruct or delay
the cause of justice. A tribunal like any other court of law of required to
exercise this discretion judiciously.
16
iii). A party has to show good cause before its application for extension of
time is granted.
iv). Factors to consider in an Application for extension of time.

(i) The length of delay.
(ii) The reason for the delay
(iii) The possibility or chances of success
(iv) The degree of prejudice to the other party.
v). Section 16(1) (c) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act comes into play and time
is reckoned from the date of service of the taxation decision. It means that
only when a taxpayer has been served with a taxation decision should
time begin to run up to 30 days.
vi). Section 16(7) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act caters for situations where a
taxpayer was not served with the taxation decision. In such circumstances
time is reckoned from the date of the taxation decision and not from the
date of service. The Section applies to situations where the decision is not
formally communicated to the applicant, who somehow later gets to know
of its existence.
vii). Once a commissioner has made an objection decision he becomes functus

officio. Once an objection decision has been made the Respondent does
not have power to review it. The powers to review the objection decision
are lie with the Tribunal, whether it is clear or not.
viii). An objection decision remains one whether it is clear or not. When it is

not clear, that is aground for appeal as long as it is clearly stated that it is
an objection decision. A party does not have the latitude to decide which
decision is an objection decision or not. An aggrieved party cannot be a
judge in its own cause. It is within the powers of the Tribunal to decide that
a decision did not amount to an objection decision.
ix). 30 days start to run on receipt of the objection notice. The tribunal
agreed with the applicant that time continues to run if there is further
communication that opens the subject by reviewing the assessment.
17
12
FRANK BABIBAASA Vs UGANDA

REVENUE AUTHORITY
HIGH COURT CIVIL DIVISION.
Brief Facts
The Plaintiff, (Frank Babibaasa) filed a suit against Uganda Revenue Authority
for payment of UGX. 1,138,794,334 being a claim for the informer’s reward due to
him arising out of information that he provided to URA on tax evaders, interest,
general damages and costs of the suit.
The Defendant gave the Plaintiff, Tax Evaders Information Form (TIF) Serial Nos.
000150, 000166, 000168 and 000174. The Plaintiff claimed that the information
that he provided led to recovery of UGX 11,387,794,334 of which the defendant
refused to pay him the 10% of the total amount recovered as the informer’s
reward under the Finance Act, 1999.
______________________________________________________________________________
(i) Whether the Plaintiff supplied the information to the Defendant?

(ii) Whether the Defendant recovered taxes as a result of the Plaintiff’s
information?
(iii) Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to be paid 10% as informer’s reward
from the Defendant?
(iv) What Remedies are available to the parties?
High Court Decision

i). Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1999 provides for a reward to a person
or officer who provides information leading to recovery of tax from tax
evaders. For one to successfully claim under this section, they must satisfy
that they provided the information to URA and that information provided
led to recovery of tax.
ii). The Plaintiff failed to confirm that the information he provided led to
recovery of tax. The receipts of payment provided by the plaintiff were
for payments in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. However, the Plaintiff did
not present any evidence to show any single payment made in July and
September which were the periods in contention in the matter.
18
iii). The Plaintiff did not provide information indicating that there were
payments accruing from the information that he provided to the defendant
as required under the law.
iv). Without a direct link of revenue collected to the information provided by

the Plaintiff, the evidence presented by the plaintiff did not confirm that the
defendant used the information that the Plaintiff provided as evidenced to
recover money from the Ministry of Works.
v). The Plaintiff failed to clarify on the lapse of time and further did not make
any specific links of his information to the tax collected and as such, court
would run the risk of making rewards when there was no information
provided.
vi). The receipts presented by the plaintiff as proof of payment indicated

different periods for which payments were being made yet the print
outs of payment of taxes extracted from the Ministry of Energy & Mineral
Development were from different periods relied on by the Plaintiff and as
such, the period was too wide to give any meaningful guidance to court on
the payments arising out of the Plaintiff’s information.
vii). The amount agreed to be paid by the ministry exceeded the amount that
the Plaintiff claimed to have unearthed as default and the amount he
claimed to prove as recovered arising out of his information.
13
LATIGO GEOFFREY VERSUS UGANDA

REVENUE AUTHORITY
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2021
Brief facts
The Appellant was an employee of Sogea Satom Limited between 19th June
2014 to 16th July 2018 and in the course of performing his duties, he discovered
that his employer was involved in wide tax evasion in respect of withholding
tax, income tax, PAYE and VAT for which he reported to the Respondent.
The Respondent (URA) first recovered UGX 965,570,779 and later UGX.
3,698,326,238. Upon recovery of the said taxes, the Respondent paid the
Appellant UGX 60,428,124 in respect of the first recovery and refused to pay
the Appellant the 10% reward o the second recovery.
The Appellant lodged an application to the Tribunal challenging the Respondent’s
decision, in which the Tribunal rendered a majority decision that denied the
Appellant the reward on the second recovery of UGX. 3,698,326,238 and
19
awarded the Appellant only UGX. 36.128,953 being the balance on the sum of
the first recovery of UGX. 965,570,779. The Appellant appealed to the High
Court.
______________________________________________________________________________
Grounds of Appeal
a) That the Chairman and Honorable members of the Tax Appeals Tribunal
erred in law in holding that the Appellant was only entitled to a reward
in respect of withholding tax recovered in lieu of the entire tax sum
recovered.
b) That the Chairman and Honorable members of the Tribunal erred in law
when they held that the recovered tax of UGX 3,698,326,239 was without
the use of the information provided by the Applicant.
c) That the Chairman and Honorable members of the Tribunal erred in law
when they held that the Applicant is only entitled to the reward in respect
of the money sum he indicated in the TIF Form, in lieu of tax recovered
based on the information he provided.
d) That the Chairman and Honorable members of the Tribunal erred in law
when they held that the Applicant was entitled to 10% reward on the
recovery of the withholding tax recovered, that is principal tax and interest
arising therefrom.
High Court Decision

i). In accordance with Section l8 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, Cop 345,
and Section 26 of the Tax Procedures Code Act, 2Ol4, the burden of proof
lies on the Applicant in respect of proceedings before the Tribunal on
review of taxation decisions.
ii). This position of the law is derived from the established principle that
whoever alleges given facts, and desires the Court to give judgment on
any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of any fact, has the
burden to prove that fact unless, it is provided by law that the proof of
that fact shall lie on another person.
iii). The term information is defined in the informer Management and reward
policy to mean any whether processed or unprocessed, any documents,
reports and other communications of any form including electronic form.
This term is broad and relates to data (processed and unprocessed),
documents, reports and any other communications electronic or otherwise.
iv). The informer reward policy provides that submission of information shall
be by email or through the URA online platform or by telephone or by fax
or visiting one of the URA
20
v). This court therefore finds that the Appellant’s choice of online submission
of information to the Respondent was within the policy framework.
vi). The criteria for submission of information is as follows:
 The information should not be available in the Uganda Revenue

Authority domain.
 The information should not be available in the public domain. Where
information is in public domain, the information should be specific on
violations or leads not known to Uganda Revenue Authority about the
tax payer.
 The information should not be general rather should indicate specific
non-compliance issues for particular person.
 Any other reason that the Commissioner General may deem fit.
vii). It is also a requirement that where the information submitted does not
meet the above criteria, the informer will be notified in writing.
viii). From the above criteria, it is clear that not all information that is provided
by the informer in whatever form is relevant. The information provided by
the informer must meet the above criteria in order to be relevant.
ix). The Act is silent on the manner in which the informer is required to supply
the information to URA therefore, the question of whether the supply of
the said information should be by TIF or otherwise is irrelevant.
x). Court found that the information supplied by the Appellant in the TIF was
in respect of withholding tax, and no information was supplied in relation
to income tax, PAYE, and VAT, from which tax assessed and recovered by
the Respondent was of UGX 3, 698,326,239.
14
MUSOKE DAN VS UGANDA REVENUE

AUTHORITY;
JINJA HIGH COURT, CIVIL SUIT NO 44/2017
Brief facts
On 27th January 2017, while the plaintiff was driving his car, a Toyota Noah
Registration No. UAS274D to deliver 48 fishnets to buyers in Soroti District when
he was stopped by John Nambafu and Major Mercy Addah Tukahirwa who were
enforcement officers of URA at Iganga enforcement office.
The enforcement officers asked for customs documents indicating the clearance
21
of the fish nets but the Plaintiff did not readily have them.
The fishnets together with the motor vehicle were impounded and deposited at
the enforcement office Iganga pending clearance or availability of the customs
documents to support the clearance of the same.
On 30th January 2017, when the Plaintiff presented the customs entries and exit
notes, the documents were not tallying with the physical goods.
Whereas the physical goods seem to originate from sun flag textiles and Knitting
Wear Nairobi Kenya, the documents presented by the Plaintiff indicated that the
goods originated from Arax Mills Ltd of Nairobi Kenya Ltd.
When URA noted the discrepancy in the documents, the goods(fishnets) and
motor vehicle were seized in accordance with the East African community
customs management Act 2004 as amended.
The Plaintiff (Musoke Dan) then sued Uganda Revenue Authority in Jinja High
Court seeking special damages of UGX 71,000,000, general damages and costs
of the suit.
When the suit came up for hearing, Uganda Revenue Authority raised a preliminary
Objection to the effect that High Court does not original have jurisdiction to
hear the case being a tax dispute.
______________________________________________________________________________
1. Whether the facts as gathered from the pleadings disclose a tax dispute and
is so whether this Honourable court has original jurisdiction to entertain and
adjudicate upon the suit?
High Court Decision

i). A dispute is a conflict or controversy; a conflict of claims or rights; an
assertion of a right, claim or demand on one side, met by contrary claims
or allegations on the other.
ii). A tax dispute therefore refers to a situation where a taxing authority

(URA) asserts claims or rights which are tax related on one hand which
are then met by contrary claims or allegations on the other hand by the
owner of goods for which taxes are sought to be recovered.
iii). The Defendant’s agents /officials acted within provisions of section 213
of East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 to seize the
motor vehicle that was transporting the uncustomed goods.
iv). A person directly affected by the decision or omission of the Commissioner

22
or any other officer on, matters relating to customs shall within 30 days
of the date of the decision or omission lodge an Application for review of
that decision or omission. The Application is lodged to the Commissioner
stating the grounds upon which the review is based.
v). The Commissioner is expected to communicate his decision within 30

days from the date of receipt of the Application.
vi). Where the Commissioner fails to communicate his decision within the
periods provided, he will be taken to have allowed the Application.
vii). A person dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner appeals to

the Tax Appeals Tribunal.
viii). A tax dispute only comes to court by way of Appeal from the decision
of the Tax Appeals Tribunal on questions of law only and the notice of
Appeal shall state the question or questions of law that will be raised on
the Appeal.
15
NILE TEAS (U) LTD VERSUS UGANDA

REVENUE AUTHORITY
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 036 OF

2022.
Brief facts
The Applicant is a company limited dealing in Agriculture and Forestry
incorporated the laws of Uganda.
On 21st September, 2020 the Respondent commenced an audit of the applicant for
the financial year 2019. On 30th December, 2020, following the audit, the Respondent
issued an administrative additional assessment against the Applicant in the sum of
UGX. 31,164,120. On 29th March, 2021, the Applicant submitted an online objection.
On 7th May, 2021, the Respondent issued the Applicant with an objection decision.
During hearing the Respondent issued a preliminary objection on the ground

that the Application had been filed out of time.
______________________________________________________________________________
Whether the Application had been filed out of time?

23
i). The law does not provide that a taxpayer who is dissatisfied with an
objection decision should file an appeal to the Commissioner Domestic
Taxes. The Applicant ought to have followed the law and filed an application
for a review of the objection decision within 30 days of being notified of
the decision.
ii). Meetings and correspondences between a taxpayer and the URA following
a taxation decision did not provide a taxpayer with a lawful excuse for not
filing an application for review within the time stipulated by law. These
arguments cannot suffice against the strict provisions of the law.
iii). It was further held that statutory corporations cannot be estopped from
carrying out statutory duties based on the principle that estoppel is incapable
of putting aside or overriding provisions of an Act as enacted by Parliament.
16
VEGOL LIMITED Vs UGANDA REVENUE

AUTHORITY
TAT NO. 148 OF 2020.
Brief Facts:
The ruling was in respect of an application challenging the Respondent’s decision
to disallow the Applicant’s claim of input Value Added Tax (VAT) credit.
The Applicant, engaged in the business of manufacturing, buying, processing

and selling edible oil and its byproducts in Uganda. It applied for the VAT refund
of UGX. 804,314,114 for March 2016 to June 2018.
The Respondent(URA) carried out an audit on the Applicant and disallowed

input VAT of UGX 426,292,325. The Respondent issued the Applicant with an
Income Tax Assessment. The Applicant objected to the assessment and the
disallowance of input VAT and the objection was disallowed.
______________________________________________________________________________
24
Issues for Determination:
i) Whether decision of the Respondent to disallow the Applicant’s VAT input
tax credit was lawful.
ii) What remedies are available to the parties?
Tax Appeals Tribunal Decision:
i). Input tax has been defined under Section 1(l) of the VAT Act as the tax
paid or payable in respect of a taxable supply to or an import of goods or
services by a taxable person.
ii). For one to be entitled to input tax credit, the following have to be proved;
 First, that the Applicant is a taxable person
 Secondly, that the taxable supplies have been made to the
Applicant during the tax period
iii). Thirdly, the taxable supplies were made for use in business of the Applicant.
iv). Section 28(11) of the VAT Act requires a taxpayer to present a tax invoice
which is a demand from a supplier that indicates the tax payable.
v). Debit notes are not tax invoices. Instead, they are a record showing that
a customer owes money to a business and this doesn’t necessarily mean
that there was a taxable supply.
vi). In absence of actual invoices, it is not clear that the suppliers demanded
for the VAT due.
vii). The Applicant did not adduce evidence to show that it satisfied the
Commissioner General as to why it did not present invoices and neither
did it give reasons why the Supplier issued it with debit notes and not
invoices.
viii). Supplier remittance are a document made by the recipient who confirms
that a good or service was received. However, it is not proof of payment
from the supplier who is required to remit VAT to the Respondent.
a. The Applicant was unable to prove the input tax incurred by way of valid
original invoices and therefore, the Application was dismissed.
25
17
ALLIED BEVERAGES COMPANY

LIMITED Vs UGANDA REVENUE
AUTHORITY
TAT NO. 1 OF 2019 AND APPLICATION 40. 0F

2021.
Brief Facts:
The ruling was in respect of an application as to whether services provided by
the Applicant to the Coca-Cola Export Corporation located in Atlanta, USA were
exports under the VAT Act.
The Applicant provides services to a foreign company called Coca-Cola Export

Corporation based in Atlanta, USA. The services included brand marketing and
research.
The Respondent issued VAT assessments, of which UGX 17,400,459,133 for the
period August 2016 and November 2020 was in dispute. The Applicant objected
and the objection decisions were disallowed.
______________________________________________________________________________
i) Whether the Applicant is liable to pay the tax assessed?

i). A supply of services is determined to have taken place in Uganda if

the recipient of the supply is not a taxable person and the services are
physically performed in Uganda by a person who is in Uganda at the time
of supply.
ii). VAT is charged on the Value Added by a taxable person on each stage
in the course of production and distribution. Therefore, VAT is taxed on
value addition to transactions and not consumption.
iii). If a supply is physically performed in Uganda, it is deemed to be a

local supply and for a service to qualify for an export, it must not have
26
been physically performed in Uganda. The Applicant had to show that
the marketing, advertising and promotion services were not physically
performed in Uganda.
iv). The Zero-rate provided for under the Third Schedule is only applicable
where the taxpayer in Uganda provides evidence that the services were
used or consumed outside Uganda. That evidence must be in form of a
contract with a foreign purchaser of the service and must clearly specifying
the place of use or consumption of the service to be outside Uganda.
v). Much as the first requirement was met, the second requirement was not
met by the Applicant as the contract did not indicate whether the place
of use or consumption of the service was in or outside Uganda.
vi). The physical location of a supplier cannot be the overriding determinant

of where services or goods are consumed. The services provided by the
Applicant were physically performed in Uganda.
vii). The Kenyan VAT Act is different from the VAT Act of Uganda and as such
the definitions of an exported service could not be applied in Uganda.
viii). The destination principle as provided by the OECD guidelines applies to

countries in Europe under the OECD arrangement or countries that have
made provision for the guidelines to apply in their law. Uganda is not a
party to the OECD which has 38 members.
ix). The Agreement between the Applicant and Coca-Cola Company stated
that it was to be governed by the laws of Uganda. The service agreement
couldn’t be said to be an international agreement.
18
COLAS EAST AFRICA VERSUS

Brief Facts:
The Applicant imports road construction materials. On 20th August 2010,
the Respondent (URA) did a post customs clearance audit on the Applicant.
The audit revealed that the Applicant imported Bitumen using Method 1 of
the transaction value method. As a result of the audit an assessment of UGX
694,037,728 on the Applicant on the ground that Method 2 of Identical goods
should have been used.
27
For the period 2015 to 2019, the Applicant imported Bitumen 80/100 183 Kg
and Bitumen 60/70 183 Kg from UAE to Uganda. The Respondent carried out a
Customs Post Clearance Audit and realized that the Applicant was incorrectly/
wrongly declaring the foregoing imports from UAE to have been imported from
Kenya whereas not, thus benefiting from the origin criteria by not paying import
duty, that is 0% as import duty rate.
The Respondent corrected the origin criteria to be United Arab Emirates (UAE)
and not Kenya by computing the 25% as import duty rate on the said Bitumen
and assessing the Applicant UGX 27,295,901 thereon.
The Respondent also examined the Applicant’s imports declared in ASCYCUDA

alongside its books of account for the period 2015 to 2019 which indicated that
whereas the Applicant had paid for the imports, it indicated that it had debts to
pay (payables) for the same imports.
The Respondent further carried out a payables test to confirm that the amounts
the Applicant declared in ASCYCUDA as imports were the true prices paid or
payable for customs purposes and the Respondent realized a net variance of
UGX 526,456,542 between the declared values and the expected values.
More so, the Respondent carried out a ledger analysis to confirm whether
the values the Applicant posted in its ledger matched those declared in the
commercial invoices, realizing a variance of UGX 53,458,341 leading to payable
taxes of UGX 12,830,002. The Respondent thus rejected the Applicant’s Method
1 of transaction value.
Consequently, the Respondent relied on imports of identical bitumen products

from the same exporter (the Applicant’s in Kenya) to Uganda for the period
2015 to 2019 and thereby used Method 2 of the transaction value of identical
goods to assess the Applicant total tax of UGX 706,958,865 (being VAT of UGX
530,219,149 and WHT of 176,739,716).
The Applicant objected to the above tax and the Respondent adjusted the tax to
total tax of UGX 694,037,728 (being VAT of UGX 520,528,296 and WHT of UGX
173,549,432).
______________________________________________________________________________

i) Whether the Applicant is liable to pay the WHT assessed?
i). Goods imported from Kenya are within the East African Community and
do not attract custom duty. Goods from the UAE attract custom duty when
they enter the East African Community.
28
ii). A branch is not a different entity from the company that sets its up. The
Applicant as a branch could not import or sell goods from or to itself since
it is one entity.
iii). The Applicant had admitted by letter that it had incorrectly classified
goods as originating from Kenya whereas they originated from the United
Arab Emirates and agreed to pay the taxes due thereof.
iv). The Applicant is located in Kenya but did not bring documents to show
that it imported from United Arab Emirates so as to prove the transaction
value was applicable. Accordingly, the Applicant failed to discharge its
burden of proof and the Respondent was justified to use Method 2 of the
transaction value of identical goods.
19
LUWALUWA INVESTMENTS LIMITED Vs

TAT NO. 39 OF 2021.
Brief Facts
The ruling was in respect of an application challenging a Withholding Tax
Assessment of UGX 965,700,000 arising from the purchase of mortgaged land.
The Applicant is a company dealing in real estate and transport. It purchased

property known as Afrique Suites sitting on five plots from Equity Bank but did
not pay WHT. On 8th April, 2021, the Respondent (URA) issued a WHT assessment
of UGX 965,700,000 against the Applicant for October 2020.
The Applicant objected to the assessment on the ground that the sale of the
property did not attract WHT. The Respondent disallowed the objection.
______________________________________________________________________________

i) Whether the Applicant is liable to pay the WHT assessed?

A reading of Section 118B (2) shows that for one to withhold tax under the
Section, the following conditions have to be met;
29
 There must be a resident person;
 There must be a purchase;
 The purchase must be of a business and or business asset;
 The purchaser must withhold tax.
v). S. 118B (2) of the Income Tax Act limits its scope to a resident person and
not every taxable person, and only provides for the term ‘purchase’ and
not ‘sale’ and as such, the duty to withhold tax is on the purchaser and not
the seller.
vi). The Applicant was a resident person as per Section 2 (yy) of the Income
Tax Act which includes a company, read in line with Section 2 (hhh) defines
a resident person to include a resident company.
vii). The word purchase is defined as the act or an instance of buying or the
acquisition of an interest in real or personal property by sale or mortgage
hence one can acquire interest by mortgage.
viii). S.2(h) of the Income Tax Act defines a business asset as an asset being
used in a business and an asset being held ready for use in a business. It
includes any asset held for sale in a business and any asset owned for a
partnership or a company.
ix). The Applicant was wrong to suggest that the clause excluded assets
owned by individuals from being classified as business assets as S.2(h)
uses the word ‘include’ which shows that the items mentioned as assets
of a partnership/company are part of a business asset, but do not define
what a business asset is.
x). S. 2(h) of the Income Tax Act asserts that an asset of a company or a
partnership is a business asset whether or not it is being used in the
business or held ready for use or is held for sale. For an individual, not all
its assets are business assets, he or she has to show that the asset was
used or held ready for use in the business or held for sale.
xi). S.118 B (2) of the Income Tax Act does not state whose business the asset
should be assigned to. As long as it is a business asset, a purchaser is
obliged to withhold tax.
xii). By omitting to state who the business asset belongs to, the provision
applies to all purchases irrespective of the owner or seller.
xiii). There was nothing to prevent the Applicant from withholding tax as there
was no evidence that the money recovered from the sale was only used to
pay interest of the bank.
xiv). The Applicant was not exempt under Section119 of the Income Tax Act as
this section only applies to provision of goods or services to government
and other entities. This section was inapplicable in this case.
30
xv). Where the provisions of a taxing Act are clear and unambiguous, it cannot
apply other statutes to interpret the Act and as such, the arguments about
the mortgage act were misplaced.
20
ATC UGANDA LIMITED VS UGANDA

REVENUE AUTHORITY
HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO.32 OF 2020
Brief Facts:
In June 2012, the Appellant received a seven-year loan of USD 124,500,000
carrying interest of 6.56% per annum from its immediate parent company UTI
Incorporated in the Netherlands, to fund the purchase of communication towers.
The shareholder loan provided that interest would accrue and such accrued
interest will be added to the principal amount outstanding. The Appellant did
not pay withholding tax on the accrued interest that was added to the principal.
The Respondent issued an assessment for withholding tax for the period 2012 to
2017 on the accrued interest amounting to UGX 24,232,558,369.
On 20th December, 2018 the Appellant objected to the assessment on the basis
that Withholding tax ought to have been paid at the point when the interest was
paid not when it accrued and since interest had not been paid, the assessment
was improper.
The Tax Appeals Tribunal partly agreed with the Appellant when it held that
withholding tax should be due on interest when it is paid and not when it accrues.
Having held that withholding tax should be due on interest when it is paid and
not when it accrues, the Tax Appeals Tribunal went on to hold that the interest
was paid at the end of each interest period when it was converted into a loan.
On 13th November 2020, the Appellant filled an appeal in the High Court, which
seeks to challenge the finding that interest was paid at the end of each interest
period when it was converted into loan.
______________________________________________________________________________
1. Whether by converting interest and adding it to the principal loan, the

Appellant was paying interest within the meaning of Section 2(xx) and
47(2) of the Income Tax Act, Cap. 340.
31
2. Whether the Tax Appeals Tribunal erred in law when it relied on Uganda
Tower Interco B. V’s (UTI) audited books of accounts to hold that the
Appellant had paid interest to UTI.
3. Whether the Tax Appeals Tribunal erred in ordering the Appellant to pay
the assessed withholding tax taking into account the 30% withholding tax
the Appellant had already paid.
High Court Decision
i). The import of Section 47 of the Income Tax Act is that the requirement
to withhold tax arises at the time the interest is “paid” and not when it
accrues.
ii). Interest is deemed to have been paid when it is capitalized and in the loan
book/accounts, the Appellant’s lender recognizes that interest has been
paid. These books are part of the evidence and consideration which the
Tax Appeals Tribunal took into account when arriving at their decision.
iii). Section 47(1) of the Income Tax Act requires a person to withhold tax from
interest paid or payable to a non- resident while Section 47(2) provides
that where interest is subject to withholding tax, the interest shall be taken
to be derived or incurred when paid.
iv). The requirement to withhold arises at the time the interest is paid and in
the instant case, interest is deemed to have been paid when the accrued
interest was capitalized at the end of each interest period.
v). ATC ought to have withheld tax at the end of each interest period and thus
the Tribunal rightfully held that by converting interest and adding it to the
principal loan, the Appellant was paying interest under the shareholder
loan agreement and that consequently, ATC had an obligation to withhold
tax at the time of capitalizing the interest.
The High Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the decision and orders
of the Tax Appeals Tribunal.
32
21
RICHARD MWAMI VERSUS UGANDA

REVENUE AUTHORITY
Brief Facts
The case was in respect of commission payable to a whistle blower for additional
taxes that were collected by the respondent.
The Applicant provided information to the Respondent (URA) relating to a tax

evasion by MTN Uganda Limited (MTN) on its mobile money platform for the
period of January 2011 to December 2014 which according to URA led to an
investigation and recovery of taxes to the tune of UGX 6,692,544,281.
On 13th June 2018, the respondent paid the applicant UGX 635,199,554 and in
November 2018, UGX 17,404,526.
The Applicant lodged the above suit seeking a further reward of UGX 3,429,917,892
on the ground that his information led to recovery of Taxes amounting to UGX
40,836,328,991 which URA contested on the ground that additional taxes from
MTN were as a result of the legal interpretation of the taxing point of Excise duty.
______________________________________________________________________________

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to a further informer’s commission of
UGX 3,429,917,892?

1) The Tribunal noted that in order to determine whether the Applicant is entitled
to an additional amount of reward, it was important to know what information
he provided and what the URA relied on to lead to recovery of tax.
2) The Tribunal held that any information given without first filing the TIF
(Tax evaders Information Form) does not create an obligation on URA to
pay a reward.
3) The Tribunal agreed that the Applicant was entitled to a commission on

corporate tax of UGX 118,152,277, excise duty on mobile money transactions
33
of UGX 114,969,125, excise duty of UGX 6,237,026,417 and VAT on airtime
sold through mobile money of UGX 222,396,462.
4) The total tax liability was therefore UGX 6,692,544,281 and therefore the
applicant would be entitled to 10% of that amount minus what he was paid.
5) On the issue of Excise Duty (POS v Usage) the tribunal noted that it
was the URA’s evidence that salvaged the day. The Applicant had not
mentioned how MTN evaded excise taxes using the tax point or point of
sale as against usage by MTN. URA had used more skill and expertise to
discover loopholes and the Applicant’s information cannot be said to have
been used to discover the tax evasion.
6) On item 5 – Excise Duty (international incoming calls), there was no

evidence that the applicant availed information on international incoming
calls. This information was in the domain of the URA and was not obtained
as a result of information provided by the Applicant.
7) The recovery of taxes of UGX 9,870,031,239 which was in respect of

international calls was therefore done without the input of the applicant.
8) The Tribunal held that the applicant failed to prove the nexus between
the information he provided and the tax liability of excise duty in respect
of the application of tax point on usage and also the nexus between his
information and international incoming calls.
However, the information provided was useful in some tax heads where the
applicant was paid UGX 635,199,554 leaving a balance of UGX 38,829,221.
22
ELGON HYDRO SITI (PVT) LIMITED

VERSUS UGANDA REVENUE
AUTHORITY,
TAT NO. 125 OF 2019
Brief facts
On 17th September 2019, Uganda Revenue Authority wrote to the Applicant
demanding for UGX. 648,299,671/= as taxes on Hydro Power Supplies vide entries
C6613, C6611 and C6608 of 2018. The URA conducted an audit where it was
established that there was misclassification of Customs tariff values for valves
imported by the Applicant, which had been misclassified as parts of a turbine.
The Applicants wrote an Appeal to the URA in an attempt to provide ‘clarity’ on

the values relied on, however, URA upheld the assessment levied.
34
Subsequently the Applicant lodged an Application before TAT, challenging URA’s
Objection decision contending that the valves were properly classified.
______________________________________________________________________________

(i) Whether the Applicant is liable to pay import duty assessed by the
Respondent?
(ii) Remedies available to the parties?

i). The world Customs Organisation developed international standards to
assist revenue collections of members and to guide and support their
customs administrations.
ii). Uganda is a member of the world customs organization which developed

the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description
and Coding System to facilitate trade and Information exchange by
harmonizing the description classification and coding of goods in
international trade.
iii). The role of a member state is to make the correct interpretation though
its tax authority guided by General Interpretation rules of the Harmonised
system (HS) and to ensure that correct classification of a product has been
made.
iv). Uganda uses the Harmonised system as provided for under the East
African Customs Union.
v). The valves in dispute as imported by the Applicant fall under HS code as
applied by the Respondent (upon reclassification) and hence the Applicant
is liable to 10% duty.
vi). The Applicant was liable to pay tax of UGX. 171,059,811 (evidence provided
by URA covered taxes on valves up to this amount).
35
23
AMATHEON AGRI UGANDA LIMITED vs

TAT APPLICATION NO.7 OF 2021
Brief facts
The Applicant is a company incorporated in Uganda with two shareholders,
Amatheon Agri Holding N.V (Netherlands) (AAH) and Amatheon Framing GmbH
(Germany) (AFG). The business of the Applicant started engaging in agricultural
-business/ commercial farming.
In 2014, the Applicant imported various agricultural machinery and spare parts
for which it claimed input VAT on imported goods UGX. 1,470,030,620.
In 2014, the Applicant imported seeders and planters for which it claimed input
VAT on imported goods UGX. 87,594,082. Between 2015, 2016 and 2017, the
Applicant further imported various agricultural machinery and spare parts for
which it claimed input VAT UGX. 541,344,739.
The Respondent (URA) conducted a tax audit of the Applicant for the period of
January 2015 to May 2020. On 29th September 2020, the Respondent issued a
tax audit with a VAT Assessment plus penal tax of UGX 325,024,817.
Following a Tribunal mediation process, the Respondent in a letter dated May

7th 2021 maintained a VAT assessment of UGX. 283,437,890 for the period of
January 2015 to May 2020. The Respondent disallowed the input tax claim of
UGX. 1,470,030,620 and UGX. 87,594,082 as being incurred more than 6 months
prior to registration. The Respondent disallowed the apportioned input credit of
UGX. 1,692,433,735.
______________________________________________________________________________
Issues:
1. Whether the input tax claimed by the Applicant is payable?

2. Whether the VAT of UGX. 283,437,890 is payable?
i). The issue of the Applicant’s payment of an illegal 15% was neither raised in
the objection nor addressed in the objection decision. Though the decision
36
of Margaret Akiiki Rwaheru &13945 others vs URA (supra) was made after
the objection, the Applicant did not obtain leave from the Tribunal to raise
it during the trial. Tribunal is limited to the grounds raised in the objection
unless it orders otherwise.
ii). The said issues were not raised in the applicant’s application and during
the scheduling.
iii). Since the issue of the purported illegal 15% VAT was not raised in the
objection, not pleaded, not addressed during the scheduling, the Tribunal
would not address it. The Tribunal therefore only addressed the disputes
stated in the objection of 6th November 2020 and the objection decision
of May 7th 2021.
iv). The Tribunal’s decision in Amatheon Agri Uganda Ltd vs URA Application
50 of 2018, where it was ruled that a sale of cereals is an exempt supply
has not been overturned by a higher Court, hence the said decision is still
persuasive though not binding. The Tribunal is required to expeditiously
dispose of tax matters and the applicant did not provide any grounds why
the Tribunal should depart from its decision above.
v). Since there is a mixed supply in this matter, the formula does not change
and an additional tax of UGX 1,692,433,735 whose quantum was not
challenged, arises and is maintained.
vi). An exempt supply is not a taxable supply. What the applicant wants is tax it
paid in error, therefore, the issue of input VAT does not arise. It was merely
tax paid in error. The tax claimed by the Applicant of UGX. 1,470,0303,620
is payable because the imports are exempted by the VAT Act.
vii). The VAT of UGX. 87,594,082 paid on exempt goods and paid in error is
payable to the Applicant.
24
AGABA HENRY V UGANDA REVENUE

AUTHORITY
Brief Facts
The Applicant bought and imported into Uganda a used motor vehicle; a 2010
Mercedes Benz E–class model at USD 6637 being the Cost, Insurance and Freight.
The Applicant thereafter, through his clearing agent made a declaration to the
37
Respondent using the transaction value of USD 6508.
The Respondent rejected the applicant’s declared value of USD 6508 and uplifted
the customs value to USD 9,205.44.
The Applicant objected on the ground that the Respondent was bound to apply
his transaction value in computation of taxes.
The Respondent disallowed the Applicant’s objection on the ground that the
Valuation of the Applicant’s motor vehicle was done in line with the East African
Community Administrative ruling of valuation of used goods dated 13th December,
2013.
______________________________________________________________________________
Issues
1. Whether the respondent was justified in disallowing the transaction value

method computing the customs duty payable?
i). That Administrative Ruling though may have the force of law are only
binding custom authorities but not on courts and the tribunal. The tribunal
only takes the ruling into consideration.
ii). It further held that for an alternative method of calculating value to be

applied, the customs must show that there are challenges and complexities
in applying the 5 methods provided for in Section 122 and the Fourth
Schedule of EACCMA.
iii). It held that the respondent was not justified to uplift the value of the car
from US$ 6,508 to US$9,205.44 and thus allowed the Application with
costs and interest to the applicant.
38
25
BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO

LIMITED VERSUS UGANDA REVENUE
AUTHORITY
TAT NO. 62 OF 2019
Brief Facts
The taxpayer deals in the business of sale of cigarettes. The Applicant imported
cigarettes originating from Kenya and classified them as ‘M’ on the certificates of
origin. The Respondent carried out a post clearance audit and issued a customs
duty Assessment of UGX 15,118,486,629 on the Applicant on grounds that the
goods should have been classified as ‘C’, which assessment the Applicant disputes.
______________________________________________________________________________
Issues
i) Whether the applicant is liable to pay the tax assessed?
i). There is need to exhaust all the remedies and processes under the EACCMA,
the rules of origin and applicable manual before preferential treatment is
denied.
ii). There is no clear rule that states that if a party fills a certificate of origin in
Box 7 incorrectly it should be denied preferential treatment.
iii). Where there is nothing to indicate that an inadvertently incorrect reference

to an invoice number invalidates the certificate, or the reference to the
invoice to Levi, would result in the certificate being withheld.
iv). For one to be punished or denied a privilege under a law, there must be a
clear rule that prescribes the offence and punishment.
v). There is no limit in which an importer is allowed to put right an inaccuracy

of a clerical nature before expiration of a certificate.
vi). Benefits under an international agreement should rarely be sacrificed at

the altar of revenue collection.
vii). Where Uganda has entered an international agreement, it is bound by the

39
said agreement and in exceptional circumstances should a party be denied
preferential treatment under an international agreement.
viii). Imports which receive preferential treatment or where tax is foregone,

should be treated with the urgency they deserve because it means less
tax collected.
ix). An importer bears the responsibility to be accountable for the imported

goods since the preferential origin of goods constitutes an element of
determining the amount of customs duty payable, that an importer should
supply all the supporting documents and a certificate of origin. Where
the importer notices incorrect information, it is required to inform the
competent authority. Where there is doubt about the information on a
certificate of origin, the customs authorities of the partner state should
raise queries.
x). In exceptional circumstances, the authority may request for verification.

The process should be followed as stated in the EACCMA, the rules of
origin 2015 and the manual exhausted before preferential treatment is
denied.
26
ROBERT ASIIMWE AKANGA &

KALEMBA STEVENS V. ATTORNEY
GENERAL, DPP & URA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.
007 & 008 OF 2022 (CONSOLIDATED) ARISING
FROM CRIMINAL CASE No. 1 OF 2022
Brief facts
The Applicants, Robert Asiimwe Akanga and Kalemba Stevens filed two motions
against the Attorney General, DPP and URA in the High Court Anti-Corruption
Division seeking various orders; that the trial against them be declared null
and void on grounds that at the time of arrest and detention, their rights were
violated (torture), compensation, punitive and general damages.
On 28th February 2021, the Applicants intercepted a vehicle belonging to south

Sudanese nationals and allegedly stole USD 410,000 (United States Dollars Four
Hundred and Ten Thousand only). The case was reported to Uganda Police and
when URA was notified, it arrested the said persons and handed them over to
Uganda Police (Special Investigation Unit, Kireka).
The Applicants alleged to have been tortured at arrest and while in custody, by
the Respondents and sought orders among others that the criminal case against
them be discontinued and acquitted of all charges, together with compensation
40
of punitive and general damages of not less than UGX. 1.5 billion (Uganda Shillings
One Billion, Five Hundred Million)
URA filed affidavits in reply denying the allegations of torture and stated that they
only identified, arrested and handed over the suspects to police. The Attorney
General and DPP also denied the allegations of torture.
______________________________________________________________________________
1. Whether A1 and A2 were subjected to torture?

2. If so, whether the non- derrogable rights A1 and A2 were violated?
3. What remedies are available if any?
High Court Decision
i). Non-derogation means it is inviolable. There is no legal justification for

torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of a human
being.
ii). Human rights are not subject to qualifications or grading by courts based
on severity or degree of violation.
iii). Proof of medical evidence is not a legal requirement in cases of Human

rights where torture is the subject of inquiry.
iv). Extension of time is strictly for time imposed by the rules or statute.
Administrative timelines can be extended by ordinary letter.
v). Cases of Human rights are not subjected to the strict rules of procedure
and evidence. Courts are mandated to examine substance and not mere
form when dealing with fundamental human rights of citizens.
vi). Compensation is permissible in criminal trials by virtue of statutes.

Compensation is one of the reliefs granted to a victim of human rights
violation. Compensation in cases of quantum of damages is largely judge
made. The aim of an award of damages is to compensate the claimant for
loss caused to him or her injuries and to place him in, so far as possible
to in the position he or she would have been had those injuries not been
suffered.
vii). The Applicants were subjected to acts of torture and their non – derrogable
rights were threatened, infringed and grossly violated.
viii). The brutality meted out on the Applicants call for adequate compensation
for not just their pain and prolonged suffering but also the impact on their
lives after. The public humiliation and embarrassment caused also calls for
a higher value of compensation.
41
ix). Beating a person to unconsciousness or using tricks like pulling a trigger
of a gun whose muzzle is inserted in the mouth of the victim is horrendous.
This is a proper case where punitive damages are justifiable in addition to
general damages. The acts of torture were committed with impunity.
42
Sun Feature
URA Logo
QR Code
SMS Code
DTS Website
UNBS seal
of Quality
Special
Feature
Crested Crane
Avoid fake products!

Watermark
Sodas, water, beers, wines, spirit and cigarettes
#KakasaWithDTS
Contact us: Website | www.ura.go.ug, Email | services@ura.go.ug
Call center/ Customer care | 0800 217 000, 0800 117 000

Case Digest Volume II July September 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest Volume II July September 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE DIGEST

decisions delivered in the first quarter of Division

for working diligently, professionally and efficiently, in &order

PATIENCE T. RUBAGUMYA (MRS.)

This digest features a summary of various decisions in regard to diverse tax

“Developing Uganda Together”

Barbra Ajambo Nahone George Ssenyomo

Robert L. Wamala Andrew Odoch

UAP OLD MUTUAL UGANDA

TAT APPLICATION NO. 47 OF 2019

The Applicant is engaged in the business of general insurance in Uganda.The

Issues for Determination

Tax Appeals Tribunal Decision

MUKISA PATRICK VERSUS ATTORNEY

CS 491 OF 2021 MENGO CHIEF MAGISTRATES

Issues for determination

Magistrates Court Decision

FARID MEGHANI VERSUS UGANDA

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 06 OF 2021

The Appellant filed an Application to extend time within which to file an

The Applicant was issued with administrative additional tax assessments on

High Court Decision:

2. The High Court cannot interfere merely because of a difference of

AFGRI UGANDA LIMITED VS. UGANDA

HCCA NO. 35 OF 2022 BEFORE JUSTICE

High court Decision

SAMONA LTD VERSUS UGANDA

TAT NO. 104 OF 2022

Issue for determination

MAGNET CONSTRUCTION LTD VERSUS

86/2022 ARISING FROM TAT APPLICATION

Issue for determination

Whether the monies on the Respondent’s account can be attached to recover

Tax Appeals Tribunal Decision

BBUULE MUHAMMAD VERSUS

TAT APLICATION NO. 26 OF 2021

The Respondent reviewed the Applicant’s objection and maintained the

Issue for determination

Tax Appeals Tribunal Decision

TECX LUBRICANTS (U) LTD VERSUS

APPLICATION No. 11 OF 2021

The Respondent (URA) queried the Applicant’s self-assessment and issued an

1. Whether the Applicant is liable to pay the tax assessed?

Tax Appeals Tribunal Decision

SWT TANNERS & OTHERS v

CIVIL APPEAL 172 OF 2019

Court of Appeal Decision:

UGANDA RAILWAYS CORPORATION

COURT OF APPEAL, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 104

Aggrieved by the decision of the Respondent, the Appellant lodged an appeal

Court of Appeal Decision

AFRICA RENEWAL MINISTRIES

TAT MISC. APPLICATION NO. 93 OF 2022.

Tax Appeals Tribunal Decision

iv). Factors to consider in an Application for extension of time.

vii). Once a commissioner has made an objection decision he becomes functus

viii). An objection decision remains one whether it is clear or not. When it is

FRANK BABIBAASA Vs UGANDA

HIGH COURT CIVIL DIVISION.

Issues for determination

(i) Whether the Plaintiff supplied the information to the Defendant?

High Court Decision

iv). Without a direct link of revenue collected to the information provided by