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

Kansai Plascon Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 64 of 2022)

Kansai Plascon Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 64 of 2022) [2022] UGTAT 32 (10 February 2022)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application 64 of 2022

Judges

Mugenyi, Chairperson, Akabway, Panel Member, Katwe

The Tribunal held that Kansai Plascon did not make a valid voluntary disclosure under section 66 of the Tax Procedure Code Act, so penalties and interest already collected were not refundable.

• Voluntary Disclosure
• Tax Penalties
• Compounding Of Offences
• Tax Procedure Code
• Waiver Of Interest
• Tax Assessment

Airtel Uganda v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 43 of 2020)

Airtel Uganda v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 43 of 2020) [2020] UGTAT 26 (20 May 2020)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application No. TAT 43 of 2020

Judges

Katwe, Panel Member, Mugerwa, Mugenyi, Chairperson

The Tax Appeals Tribunal held that Airtel Uganda was not required to pay interest on disputed VAT and income tax for the period the application was pending.

• Vat Interest Dispute
• Income Tax Interest
• Tax Appeals Procedure
• Tax Penalties
• Consent Settlement
• Tax Objection Process

Cooper Motors Corporation (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 67 of 2018)

Cooper Motors Corporation (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 67 of 2018) [2020] UGTAT 2 (17 March 2020)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

TAT Application No. 67 of 2018

Judges

Ali, Panel Member

The Tribunal dismissed a challenge to withholding tax penalties on related-party loan interest, holding the applicant did not prove the debt-to-equity conversion or payment timing.

• Withholding Tax
• Related Party Loans
• Interest Payments
• Statutory Interpretation
• Tax Penalties
• Withholding-tax

Enviro Serve Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 24 of 2017)

Enviro Serve Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 24 of 2017) [2020] UGTAT 15 (24 January 2020)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

TAT Application No. 24 of 2017

Judges

Ali, Panel Member, Mugerwa, Mugenyi, Chairperson

The Tribunal held that the applicant, having been validly registered for VAT from October 2013, was a taxable person entitled to claim input VAT credit for supplies made for business use, even before making taxable supplies, as long as the registration was not cancelled. The Tribunal found that the VAT Act does not require actual taxable supplies before entitlement to input VAT, only that supplies were for business use and properly documented. The Tribunal rejected the respondent's reliance on Section 28(8) of the VAT Act, finding it inapplicable as the applicant only dealt in standard-rated…

Source excerpt

• Vat Refunds
• Input Tax Credit
• Taxable Person Status
• Tax Compliance
• Tax Penalties

J.P Construction Service Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 17 of 2009)

J.P Construction Service Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 17 of 2009) [2011] UGTAT 3 (14 February 2011)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application No. TAT 17 of 2009

The Tribunal upheld penal tax assessments against J.P. Construction Services Ltd for unpaid VAT and false or misleading returns, and dismissed the application with costs.

• Vat Assessment
• Penal Tax
• Tax Returns
• Burden Of Proof
• Tax Penalties
• Administrative Review