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
Amatheon Agri Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application 7 of 2021) [2022] UGTAT 19 (18 August 2022)
The Tribunal allowed refund claims for VAT paid in error on exempt imports, but upheld an apportioned input tax liability and refused issues outside the objection.
MTN Uganda Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 15 of 2018) [2020] UGTAT 7 (19 May 2020)
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…
Source excerpt
Biira Udear Co Ltd v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCS 400 of 2015) [2018] UGCommC 75 (20 August 2018)
The High Court held that coffee husks and palm kernel supplied by Biira Udear were VAT-exempt, set aside the assessments, ordered a refund, damages, interest, and costs.
JK Patel v Uganda Revenue Authority - (HCT-00-CC-CS 14 of 2003) [2006] UGCommC 24 (4 June 2006)
The court found that the defendant's letter dated 4/8/1997, which was copied to the plaintiff and clearly stated the overpayment, constituted an acknowledgment of debt within the meaning of S.22(4) of the Limitation Act. This acknowledgment restarted the limitation period, making the suit timely. The evidence showed the plaintiff paid Shs.247,323,174 against a liability of Shs.191,805,304, resulting in an overpayment of Shs.55,517,870. The defendant conceded this overpayment in its correspondence. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the overpaid amount, interest at t…
Source excerpt
