Uganda Case Law

East African Marine Transport Company Limited v Uganda Revenue Limited (TAT Application 16 of 2024)

East African Marine Transport Company Limited v Uganda Revenue Limited (TAT Application 16 of 2024) [2025] UGTAT 7 (30 April 2025)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

TAT Application 16 of 2024

Judges

Crystal Kabajwara -Chairperson, Nambi, Panel Member, Najjemba

The Tribunal held that the ferry qualifies as machinery or equipment under the ordinary and literal meaning of those terms, as it consists of fixed and moving parts working together to perform the function of transporting cargo and is integral to the Applicant's logistics business. The Tribunal found that Paragraph 1(ae) of Schedule 3 of the VAT Act does not require machinery or equipment to be made from locally produced raw materials, as the provision offers alternatives using the conjunction 'or.' The Applicant met all statutory conditions for exemption: the supply was of machinery or equip…

Source excerpt

• Vat Exemption
• Definition Of Machinery
• Logistics Sector Investment
• Tax Incentives
• Contract Splitting
• Statutory Interpretation

Sharad v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application 57 of 2023)

Sharad v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application 57 of 2023) [2024] UGTAT 4 (4 November 2024)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

TAT Application 57 of 2023

Judges

Ali, Panel Member, Katwe, Safi

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s property was a serviced apartment, not exempt residential letting, and upheld VAT on the rental income.

• Vat Exemption
• Serviced Apartments Definition
• Leasing Of Immovable Property
• Active Vs Passive Exploitation
• Burden Of Proof Tax
• Interpretation Of Tax Statutes

Norbrook Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 18 of 2018)

Norbrook Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 18 of 2018) [2020] UGTAT 5 (15 May 2020)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

TAT Application No. 18 of 2018

Judges

Katwe, Panel Member, Ali, Mugenyi, Chairperson

The Tribunal partly allowed a tax appeal over veterinary products, upholding tax on Alamycin Egg and Chick Formula but vacating assessments on four other products.

• Customs Classification
• Vat Exemption
• Withholding Tax
• Legitimate Expectation
• Animal Medicaments
• Food Supplements

Britam Insurance Company Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 68 of 2018)

Britam Insurance Company Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 68 of 2018) [2020] UGTAT 14 (26 March 2020)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

TAT Application No. 68 of 2018

Judges

Akabway, Panel Member, Mugenyi, Chairperson, Ali

The Tribunal held that fronting and facultative commissions linked to reinsurance are VAT exempt, and allowed Britam’s application on the challenged assessment.

• Vat Exemption
• Reinsurance Services
• Insurance Commissions
• Tax Assessment
• Ancillary Services
• Tax Dispute Resolution

Amatheon Agri Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 50 of 2018)

Amatheon Agri Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 50 of 2018) [2020] UGTAT 17 (28 January 2020)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

TAT Application No. 50 of 2018

Judges

Ali, Panel Member, Mugerwa, Mugenyi, Chairperson

The Tribunal found that Paragraph 1(l) of the Third Schedule of the VAT Act requires cereals to be both grown and milled in Uganda by the same person for the supply to be zero-rated. The applicant only grew and did not mill the cereals, and thus its supplies did not qualify as zero-rated. The Tribunal applied the purposive approach to statutory interpretation, referencing Parliamentary Hansard to confirm the legislative intent was to encourage value addition through milling by the grower. The Tribunal further held that the applicant's activities—harvesting, drying, cleaning, and packaging—con…

Source excerpt

• Vat Exemption
• Input Tax Credit
• Statutory Interpretation
• Agricultural Products
• Zero Rated Supplies

Gustro Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Taxation Application No. 17 of 2018)

Gustro Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Taxation Application No. 17 of 2018) [2018] UGTAT 204 (28 December 2018)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Taxation Application No. 17 of 2018

Judges

Akabway, Panel Member, Mugerwa, Mugenyi, Chairperson

The Tribunal set aside a VAT assessment on imported books, holding that the disputed books qualified as exempt import materials and zero-rated educational materials.

• Vat Exemption
• Importation Of Educational Materials
• Customs Post Clearance Audit
• Florence Agreement Application
• Zero Rated Supply
• Interpretation Of Tax Statutes

Biira Udear Co Ltd v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCS 400 of 2015)

Biira Udear Co Ltd v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCS 400 of 2015) [2018] UGCommC 75 (20 August 2018)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

HCCS 400 of 2015

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.

• Vat Exemption
• Tax Assessment
• Tax Refund
• Misrepresentation By Tax Authority
• Private Ruling
• Enforcement Measures

Total (U) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 9 of 2010)

Total (U) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 9 of 2010) [2011] UGTAT 7 (24 May 2011)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

TAT Application No. 9 of 2010

Judges

Akabway, Panel Member, Mugenyi, Chairperson, Bahemuka

The Tribunal found that the supply of 'closed' fuel cards is incidental to the supply of petroleum products, which are VAT exempt. The management services provided through the cards are not an independent supply but are a means of better enjoying the principal supply of fuel. The Tribunal applied the principle that ancillary or incidental services share the tax treatment of the principal supply. Since the cards are only relevant in connection with the purchase of fuel, and without fuel the cards would be irrelevant, the management fee and the convenience provided by the cards are less importa…

Source excerpt

• Vat Exemption
• Mixed Supplies
• Incidental Services
• Petroleum Products
• Management Fees

Total (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 9 of 2010)

Total (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 9 of 2010) [2010] UGTAT 3 (18 March 2010)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application No. TAT 9 of 2010

The Tribunal found that the supply of 'closed' fuel cards is incidental to the supply of petroleum products, which are exempt from VAT. The convenience provided by the cards is less important than the supply of fuel and is not an aim in itself for customers. The management services related to the issuance of closed cards are integral to the supply of fuel and cannot be separated for VAT purposes. The Tribunal applied the principle that ancillary services share the tax treatment of the principal supply and concluded that only one supply exists—the exempt supply of fuel. Therefore, the VAT asse…

Source excerpt

• Vat Exemption
• Mixed Supplies
• Incidental Services
• Petroleum Products
• Management Fees