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
Uganda Revenue Authority v Tamale & Co. Advocates (Civil Appeal 11 of 2020) [2023] UGCommC 165 (29 December 2023)
The High Court held that VAT liability can arise before VAT registration where registration was required, and upheld an additional assessment against the respondent.
Nile Breweries Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 100 of 2022; Application 110 of 2022; Application 46 of 2022) [2023] UGTAT 47 (28 November 2023)
The Tribunal held that beer delivered to Ugandan agents was a local supply, not an export, and upheld VAT and local excise duty assessments against Nile Breweries.
K- Files Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 69 of 2021) [2022] UGTAT 34 (2 June 2022)
The Tribunal found that the respondent misapplied Section 38(1) of the Tax Procedures Code Act by allocating payments made by the applicant towards penal tax and interest instead of principal tax. This misapplication distorted the VAT ledger and created an artificial principal tax liability. The Tribunal held that payments should have been applied first to principal tax, which would have resulted in no outstanding principal liability and allowed the applicant to benefit from statutory waivers of interest and penalties under the VAT Amendment Acts of 2017 and 2020. The Tribunal emphasized that…
Source excerpt
K Files Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 69 of 2021) [2022] UGTAT 2 (2 June 2022)
The Tribunal set aside an assessed VAT demand after finding Uganda Revenue Authority misapplied the order of payment under section 38.
Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (UETCL) v Uganda Revenue Authority (Taxation Application No. 46 of 2018) [2022] UGTAT 8 (1 February 2022)
The Tribunal held that design services in EPC transmission-line contracts were incidental to an exempt supply, but upheld withholding tax and denied input VAT credit.
Muhju Care v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 82 of 2019) [2021] UGTAT 17 (31 March 2021)
The Tribunal held that donor funds received by the applicant do not constitute a supply of goods or services under the VAT Act and are not subject to VAT. The correct formula for apportionment of input tax between taxable and exempt supplies excludes donor funds from the computation of total supplies. Medical research does not fall within the exemption for medical, dental, and nursing services under the VAT Act, as interpreted by the ejusdem generis rule. The Tribunal found that the respondent's inclusion of donor funds in the apportionment formula distorted the computation and resulted in an…
Source excerpt
Alpa Gama Engineering Enterprises Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2014) [2020] UGCA 69 (2 July 2020)
The Court of Appeal partly allowed an appeal over a government construction contract, increasing the unpaid balance awarded and raising interest, while rejecting a VAT penalty claim.
Photon Technologies Ltd v The Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 14 of 2016) [2016] UGCommC 69 (5 October 2016)
The court found that the Respondent failed to provide any documentary evidence of a written objection decision served on the Applicant within the statutory 30-day period after the objection was lodged. The Respondent's reliance on a demand for taxes did not satisfy the statutory requirement for a written objection decision. Under section 33B(6) of the Value Added Tax Act, the Applicant was entitled to elect to treat its objection as allowed, and this election was binding on the Respondent. Any enforcement or recovery measures taken by the Respondent after the Applicant's election were ultra v…
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.
Matovu & Matovu Co Advocates v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCT-00-CC-CA 7 of 2006) [2006] UGCommC 33 (27 September 2006)
The High Court upheld a third party agency notice for VAT arrears against a partnership partner, holding that section 71 of the VAT Act allows collection from any partner.
