Uganda Case Law

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

Birungyi Barata & Associates v Uganda Revenue Authority

Birungyi Barata & Associates v Uganda Revenue Authority (Tax Application No. Tribunal 16 of 2011) [2017] UGTAT 1 (4 August 2017)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Tax Application No. Tribunal 16 of 2011

Judges

Mugenyi, Chairperson, Bahemuka, Panel Member

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner must exercise discretion on private rulings judiciously and remitted the matter for a ruling, but declined costs due to locus standi concerns.

• Private Rulings
• Statutory Discretion
• Taxpayer Rights
• Locus Standi
• Judicial Review
• Private-rulings

Bhagubhai Bhanabhai

Bhagubhai Bhanabhai [1954] EACA 134 (1 January 1954)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

The court held that the word 'child' in item (c) of the Schedule to the Defence (Admission of Women and Children) Regulations, 1940, refers only to legitimate issue of the first generation and does not include adopted children. However, the regulation does not require that only those who strictly fall within the scheduled categories may be admitted; rather, if the immigration officer is satisfied that a person comes within a category and is not a prohibited immigrant, he may permit entry. In this case, the immigration officer was satisfied and granted the applicant entry in 1947, and there wa…

Source excerpt

• Habeas Corpus
• Immigration Control
• Deportation Orders
• Statutory Discretion
• Affidavit Practice