Uganda Case Law

Easy Save Supermarket Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 3 of 2022)

Easy Save Supermarket Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 3 of 2022) [2023] UGTAT 55 (28 September 2023)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application 3 of 2022

Judges

Mugenyi, Chairperson, Akabway, Panel Member, Ali

The tribunal held that the provisions of Section 15 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act are mandatory, requiring the applicant to deposit 30% of the tax in dispute before the application can be properly entertained. The applicant admitted to not paying the requisite sum, and no evidence was adduced to prove payment. The Supreme Court's decision in Uganda Projects Implementation and Management Centre v Uganda Revenue Authority, though concerning the VAT Act, was found to be applicable to the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, confirming the constitutionality and binding nature of the deposit requirement. A…

Source excerpt

• Tax Penalties
• Electronic Fiscal Receipting
• Vat Assessment
• Procedural Requirements
• Taxpayer Compliance

Jazz Supermarkets Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 115 of 2021)

Jazz Supermarkets Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 115 of 2021) [2023] UGTAT 31 (8 May 2023)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application 115 of 2021

Judges

Mugenyi, Chairperson, Akabway, Panel Member, Mugerwa

The Tribunal set aside a UGX 84,000,000 EFRIS penalty and replaced it with UGX 6,000,000, holding the penalty was to be computed per tax period, not per invoice or day.

• Tax Penalties
• Electronic Fiscal Receipting
• Statutory Interpretation
• Administrative Discretion
• Vat Compliance
• Tax-penalties

Embassy Supermarket (U) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application 114 of 2021)

Embassy Supermarket (U) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application 114 of 2021) [2023] UGTAT 21 (5 May 2023)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

TAT Application 114 of 2021

Judges

Mugenyi, Chairperson, Akabway, Panel Member, Ali

The Tribunal found that the requirement to issue EFRIS invoices was clear and mandatory under the Tax Procedure Code Act and Gazette Notice 595 of 2020. However, the law does not specify that the penal tax should be assessed per invoice or per day of default. The Tribunal held that the penalty must be based on three hundred currency points for the tax period in question, which is one calendar month under the VAT Act. The respondent's assessment of Shs. 84,000,000 was excessive and not supported by the statute. The Tribunal applied the principle that ambiguity in tax law should be resolved in…

Source excerpt

• Tax Penalties
• Electronic Fiscal Receipting
• Statutory Discretion
• Strict Liability
• Administrative Decisions

Capital Shoppers Ltd & 4 Others v Uganda Revenue Authority

Capital Shoppers Ltd & 4 Others v Uganda Revenue Authority (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 265 OF 2020) [2020] UGHCCD 154 (10 July 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 265 OF 2020

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The High Court refused a temporary injunction against URA’s EFRIS rollout, holding that public interest and the statutory tax framework outweighed the applicants’ challenge.

• Electronic Fiscal Receipting
• E Invoicing Regulations
• Vat Compliance
• Judicial Review
• Public Interest Injunctions
• Electronic-fiscal-receipting