The Tribunal set aside VAT assessments, ordered a refund of unlawfully collected tax, and awarded damages and interest after finding the assessment evidence deficient.
The Tribunal held that NCBA Bank owed the assessed principal VAT on its financing arrangements, but was also entitled to the full VAT bad debt refund claimed.
The Tribunal dismissed Kwasa Logistics’ challenge to VAT assessments and penal tax, holding the new arguments were outside the objection decision and costs followed.
Amatheon Agri Uganda Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2020) [2023] UGCommC 4 (11 January 2023)
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2020
Judge
Abinyo, J
The High Court held that the VAT Act’s cereals provision was ambiguous and read it in favour of the taxpayer, setting aside the Tribunal and granting input VAT credit.
Airtel Ug Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 10 of 2019) [2022] UGTAT 16 (28 November 2022)
Court
Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)
Case number
Application No. TAT 10 of 2019
Judges
Akabway, Panel Member, Mugenyi, Chairperson
The Tribunal found that the VAT assessment of Shs. 643,114,709 was issued within the statutory five-year period under the VAT Act and that the applicant failed to provide proof of payment for the assessed output VAT, making it liable for the amount. The applicant's claim for input VAT credit of Shs. 1,288,219,863 was disallowed due to lack of proof of payment and discrepancies in invoice details, but the respondent admitted to input VAT credit of Shs. 124,971,481, which was awarded to the applicant. Regarding WHT, the Tribunal held that the International Telecommunications Regulations (Melbou…
Wipro Technologies South Africa PTY Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 165 of 2020; Application 5 of 2021) [2022] UGTAT 29 (29 September 2022)
The Tribunal found that the applicant issued credit notes to correct errors in invoices issued to parties not privy to the relevant contracts, and provided sufficient evidence of the transactions and corrections through a matrix of invoices and credit notes. The credit notes were deemed bona fide and compliant with statutory requirements, entitling the applicant to a VAT refund for the verified amount. However, the applicant failed to provide adequate proof of payment for input VAT claimed on supplier invoices, as bank statements did not sufficiently link payments to specific invoices or supp…
The Tribunal held that input tax credit for supplies made more than six months prior to registration is not allowable, and that only goods (not services) qualify for input credit within the six-month window before registration, provided the goods are on hand at registration. The applicant's claim for input credit on services prior to registration was rejected. For VAT paid in error to contractors, the Tribunal found that the applicant may be entitled to a refund only if it is verified that the contractors have not already claimed the amount; the applicant must provide evidence from the contra…
The Tribunal held Palladium Group Uganda Limited liable for VAT on assessed periods, finding it should have registered earlier and had not proved excess assessment or input tax credits.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to substantiate its input tax credit claims for transactions with Patrol Enterprises Limited and Ms. Lukia Kayongo Nakiwolo. The absence of original invoices, delivery notes, proof of payment, and VAT returns rendered the transactions unverifiable and the claims unsupported. The burden of proof rested on the applicant, who did not challenge the VAT assessment during the hearing. The Tribunal upheld the respondent's disallowance of input tax credit and the VAT assessment of Shs 223,056,932. Regarding penal tax, th…
MTN Uganda Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 15 of 2018) [2020] UGTAT 7 (19 May 2020)
Court
Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)
Case number
TAT Application No. 15 of 2018
Judges
Katwe, Panel Member, Ali, Mugenyi, Chairperson
The Tribunal found that while the applicant was permitted to use the Standard Alternative Method, it failed to properly apportion shared costs between taxable telecom services and exempt mobile money services as required by Regulation 14 of the VAT Regulations and S. 28(10) of the VAT Act. The respondent acted within its legal mandate in requiring the applicant to attribute and apportion input tax accordingly. The Tribunal held that the applicant's proposal for apportionment was not automatically accepted and must comply with statutory requirements. The VAT assessment was upheld as the applic…
