Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Uganda Revenue Authority v Tata Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2084 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 211 (31 July 2024)
The High Court granted Uganda Revenue Authority leave to adduce additional evidence on the origin of imported goods in an appeal from the Tax Appeals Tribunal.
Kuku Foods Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal 36 of 2021) [2024] UGCommC 218 (30 July 2024)
The High Court held that the omission by the exporter to sign the certificates of origin was a major and fatal defect, not a minor or curable error. The COMESA Rules of Origin and Implementation Procedures require both the exporter's original signature and authentication by the designated authority for a certificate of origin to be valid. The absence of the exporter's signature invalidates the certificate ab initio and disentitles the goods to preferential tariff treatment. The duty to provide valid documentation rests solely on the importer, and the customs authority is not legally obliged t…
Source excerpt
Regal Paints Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 10 of 2021) [2023] UGTAT 52 (31 August 2023)
The Tribunal partly allowed a customs tax challenge by Regal Paints, setting aside most assessments on pigments, Sadolin paint, alkyd resins, and xylenes, but upholding Dr. Fixit.
TATA Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 111 of 2020) [2022] UGTAT 27 (28 October 2022)
The Tribunal found that the respondent's doubt regarding the applicant's certificates of origin was not reasonable, as it was based on insufficient evidence and arbitrary comparison with another company's imports. The respondent failed to follow the prescribed procedures for addressing serious queries, such as formally seeking verification from the designated issuing authority in Egypt. The Tribunal held that the error in the letter on the certificate of origin was, at most, a minor inaccuracy that did not justify denial of preferential treatment. The respondent's actions were procedurally im…
Source excerpt
