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
Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority v Airtel Uganda Limited [2023] UGSC 45 (12 September 2023)
The Supreme Court held that penal tax on unpaid VAT continued to accrue during tax objection proceedings, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the cross-appeal.
Atacama Consulting Services Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 38 of 2021) [2021] UGTAT 3 (25 November 2021)
The Tribunal dismissed Atacama’s challenge to a VAT private ruling, holding it lacked jurisdiction and, in any event, the input tax claim on vehicle hire failed on the merits.
SamSung Electronics East Africa Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 36 of 2019) [2020] UGTAT 25 (30 November 2020)
The Tribunal set aside a VAT assessment against Samsung Electronics East Africa Limited, holding that a branch and head office are not separate legal entities for VAT purposes.
Aviation Hangar Services Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 21 of 2019) [2020] UGTAT 4 (30 March 2020)
The Tribunal held that aircraft maintenance services performed in Uganda for IOAFC were standard rated VAT supplies, not zero-rated exports.
Housing Finance Bank Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2012) [2020] UGCA 2035 (9 March 2020)
The Court of Appeal struck out this tax appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding there was no statutory right of appeal from the High Court in Tax Appeals Tribunal matters.
Housing Finance Bank Ltd v Commissioner General URA (HCCS 259 of 2014) [2017] UGCommC 54 (6 April 2017)
The court found that the Agency Notice issued by the Defendant was invalid because it was issued simultaneously with the tax assessment, contrary to the statutory requirement that a taxpayer must be given a 45-day window to object to an assessment before an Agency Notice can be lawfully issued. The Defendant failed to prove proper service of the assessment notice on the taxpayer, and the purported service through an agent at an address no longer associated with the taxpayer was insufficient. The Plaintiff was not liable for the tax because the delay in executing the Agency Notice was caused b…
Source excerpt
Uganda Revenue Authority v Rwakashaija Azarious & 2 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2007) [2009] UGCA 24 (30 March 2009)
The Court of Appeal held that the respondents did not supply information leading to tax recovery and were not entitled to a reward under section 7 of the Finance Act 2000.
