Uganda Case Law

Quickway Property Services Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 105 of 2021)

Quickway Property Services Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 105 of 2021) [2023] UGTAT 2 (21 February 2023)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application No. TAT 105 of 2021

Judges

Akabway, Panel Member, Mugenyi, Chairperson

The tribunal found that the applicant failed to discharge its burden of proof to establish entitlement to the input tax credit claimed. The receipts provided as proof of payment were not sequentially numbered, lacked basic features of a credible cash receipting system, and could not be independently verified. The tribunal considered the improbability of large cash transactions and the lack of supporting entries in the supplier's records as undermining the credibility of the applicant's claim. The statutory requirements for tax invoices and receipts, including serialization and sufficient deta…

Source excerpt

• Vat Input Credit
• Tax Assessment Challenge
• Evidence Of Payment
• Burden Of Proof
• Administrative Decisions

Amatheon Agri Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application 7 of 2021)

Amatheon Agri Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application 7 of 2021) [2022] UGTAT 19 (18 August 2022)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

TAT Application 7 of 2021

Judges

Mugenyi, Chairperson, Akabway, Panel Member, Katwe

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.

• Vat Input Credit
• Tax Apportionment
• Tax Refund
• Exempt Imports
• Legitimate Expectation
• Vat-refund

East African Investment Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 6 of 2019)

East African Investment Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 6 of 2019) [2020] UGTAT 22 (7 September 2020)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application No. TAT 6 of 2019

Judges

Ali, Panel Member, Mugerwa, Mugenyi, Chairperson

The Tribunal held that East African Investment Limited was entitled to part of its VAT input credit, including qualifying pre-registration supplies and services incidental to goods.

• Vat Input Credit
• Vat Registration
• Mixed Supply Goods Services
• Statutory Interest
• Tax Refunds
• Vat-input-credit

Red Concepts Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 36 of 2018)

Red Concepts Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 36 of 2018) [2020] UGTAT 3 (25 March 2020)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

TAT Application No. 36 of 2018

Judges

Katwe, Panel Member, Akabway, Mugenyi, Chairperson

The Tribunal found that while the applicant provided invoices and other documentation, there was a critical omission regarding the physical existence and place of business of Boona General Distributors. The evidence failed to establish that Boona existed or that the transactions were genuine, raising doubt about the legitimacy of the input tax claim. The burden of proof rested on the applicant to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that the transactions were not fictitious. The applicant did not discharge this burden, and the Tribunal could not ignore the possibility of fraud or invoi…

Source excerpt

• Vat Input Credit
• Administrative Assessment
• Burden Of Proof
• Fraudulent Transactions