Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 1 court collection
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:27 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

4 Nov 2020

Tax Law [2020] UGTAT 20

Advent city Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 28 of 2018)

Advent city Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 28 of 2018) [2020] UGTAT 20 (4 November 2020)

Court: Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)
Case number: Application No. TAT 28 of 2018
Judges: Katwe, Panel Member, Mugerwa, Mugenyi, Chairperson

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…

Source excerpt

Vat Assessment
Input Tax Credit
Penal Tax
Tax Procedure
Burden Of Proof

Read case analysis

15 Oct 2020

Tax Law [2020] UGTAT 23

Okuja v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 72 of 2018)

Okuja v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 72 of 2018) [2020] UGTAT 23 (15 October 2020)

Court: Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)
Case number: Application No. TAT 72 of 2018
Judges: Ali, Panel Member, Mugerwa, Mugenyi, Chairperson

The Tribunal held that exports of unprocessed foodstuffs and unprocessed agricultural products are zero-rated supplies under the VAT Act, not exempt supplies, by operation of the Third Schedule and Section 77, which gives priority to zero-rating in case of overlap. The applicant's information did not reveal any unlawful VAT refunds, as the respondent was correct in treating the exports as zero-rated and paying VAT refunds accordingly. Since the information did not lead to the recovery of any tax, the applicant was not entitled to a reward as an informer. The Tribunal also clarified that while…