Uganda Case Law

Royal Van Zanten Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 35 of 2022)

Royal Van Zanten Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 35 of 2022) [2023] UGTAT 53 (4 April 2023)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application 35 of 2022

Judges

Mugenyi, Chairperson, Mugerwa, Panel Member, Katwe

The Tribunal held that for it to have jurisdiction to review a matter, there must be a taxation decision from the respondent. The applicant did not object to the notices of approval and was not aggrieved by them, but was aggrieved by the respondent's failure to pay interest on the refund. The VAT Act and Tax Appeals Tribunal Act require a taxpayer to seek a decision from the respondent regarding non-payment of interest before approaching the Tribunal. Without such a decision, there is nothing for the Tribunal to review, and jurisdiction cannot be assumed. The Tribunal further found that the a…

Source excerpt

• Vat Refunds
• Interest On Tax Refunds
• Jurisdiction Of Tax Appeals Tribunal
• Preliminary Objection
• Limitation Periods
• Statutory Duties

VEGOL Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 148 of 2020)

VEGOL Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 148 of 2020) [2022] UGTAT 28 (23 September 2022)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application 148 of 2020

Judges

Mugenyi, Chairperson, Katwe, Panel Member, Ali

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was a taxable person and the supplies were for business use, the applicant failed to provide adequate and consistent documentary evidence as required by the VAT Act to support its claim for input VAT credit of Shs. 30,280,112. The documents presented, including supplier remittances, debit notes, and receipts, were either inconsistent, did not match invoice numbers, or did not constitute valid tax invoices as required by law. The applicant did not demonstrate that it satisfied the Commissioner General regarding the absence of original invoices, nor d…

Source excerpt

• Input Vat Credit
• Vat Refunds
• Burden Of Proof
• Evidence Of Payment
• Tax Invoices
• Vat Act Compliance

Roraima Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 68 of 2021)

Roraima Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 68 of 2021) [2022] UGTAT 22 (25 July 2022)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application 68 of 2021

Judges

Mugenyi, Chairperson, Mugerwa, Panel Member, Katwe

The Tribunal held that input tax credit for supplies made more than six months prior to registration is not allowable, and that only goods (not services) qualify for input credit within the six-month window before registration, provided the goods are on hand at registration. The applicant's claim for input credit on services prior to registration was rejected. For VAT paid in error to contractors, the Tribunal found that the applicant may be entitled to a refund only if it is verified that the contractors have not already claimed the amount; the applicant must provide evidence from the contra…

Source excerpt

• Vat Refunds
• Input Tax Credit
• Taxpayer Registration
• Tax Deregistration
• Mining Sector Taxation

Fresh Handling Services Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority

Fresh Handling Services Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal 72 of 2020) [2022] UGCommC 193 (31 March 2022)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 72 of 2020

Judge

Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti, J

The High Court held that VAT interest rights vested before the 2018 cap could not be retrospectively reduced, allowed the appeal, and set aside the Tribunal’s recovery order.

• Vat Refunds
• Interest Capping
• Agency Notice Recovery
• Retrospective Application Of Statute
• General Damages Award
• Vat-refunds

Uganda Tax Operators & Drivers Association v Uganda Revenue Authority

Uganda Tax Operators & Drivers Association v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application 24 of 2019) [2021] UGSC 61 (14 September 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Application 24 of 2019

Judge

Arach-Amoko, JSC, Mugamba, JSC, Muhanguzi, JSC, Tuhaise, JSC, Mike Chibita, JSC

The Supreme Court dismissed a review application seeking to alter its earlier VAT refund interest order, holding there was no apparent error or slip to correct.

• Vat Refunds
• Interest On Tax Refunds
• Review Of Judgment
• Slip Rule
• Res Judicata
• Vat-refunds

Okuja v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 72 of 2018)

Okuja v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 72 of 2018) [2020] UGTAT 23 (15 October 2020)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application No. TAT 72 of 2018

Judges

Ali, Panel Member, Mugerwa, Mugenyi, Chairperson

The Tribunal held that exports of unprocessed foodstuffs and unprocessed agricultural products are zero-rated supplies under the VAT Act, not exempt supplies, by operation of the Third Schedule and Section 77, which gives priority to zero-rating in case of overlap. The applicant's information did not reveal any unlawful VAT refunds, as the respondent was correct in treating the exports as zero-rated and paying VAT refunds accordingly. Since the information did not lead to the recovery of any tax, the applicant was not entitled to a reward as an informer. The Tribunal also clarified that while…

Source excerpt

• Vat Refunds
• Zero Rated Supplies
• Exempt Supplies
• Tax Informer Rewards
• Exported Goods Vat
• Tax Procedure

Enviro Serve Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 24 of 2017)

Enviro Serve Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 24 of 2017) [2020] UGTAT 15 (24 January 2020)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

TAT Application No. 24 of 2017

Judges

Ali, Panel Member, Mugerwa, Mugenyi, Chairperson

The Tribunal held that the applicant, having been validly registered for VAT from October 2013, was a taxable person entitled to claim input VAT credit for supplies made for business use, even before making taxable supplies, as long as the registration was not cancelled. The Tribunal found that the VAT Act does not require actual taxable supplies before entitlement to input VAT, only that supplies were for business use and properly documented. The Tribunal rejected the respondent's reliance on Section 28(8) of the VAT Act, finding it inapplicable as the applicant only dealt in standard-rated…

Source excerpt

• Vat Refunds
• Input Tax Credit
• Taxable Person Status
• Tax Compliance
• Tax Penalties

Utoda v Uganda Revenue Authority

Utoda v Uganda Revenue Authority [2019] UGSC 27 (19 September 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal could not vary its decree after it had been upheld on appeal, and dismissed UTODA’s challenge with costs.

• Vat Refunds
• Compound Interest Awards
• Appellate Jurisdiction
• Slip Rule Corrections
• Appellate-jurisdiction
• Slip-rule

Uganda Electricty Transmission Company Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 34 of 2017)

Uganda Electricty Transmission Company Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 34 of 2017) [2018] UGTAT 206 (30 October 2018)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application No. TAT 34 of 2017

Judges

Ali, Panel Member

The Tribunal held that UETCL’s input tax credit claim was not time barred and ordered URA to refund UGX 14,933,056,019 plus costs.

• Input Tax Credit
• Vat Refunds
• Limitation Periods
• Tax Procedure Code
• Imported Goods Taxation
• Input-tax-credit

Uganda Taxi Operators & Drivers Association v Uganda Revenue Authority

Uganda Taxi Operators & Drivers Association v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 152 of 2017) [2018] UGCA 249 (29 March 2018)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 152 of 2017

Judge

Owiny-Dollo, DCJ, Kavuma, JA, Kasule, JA

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to correct its earlier judgment on VAT refund interest, holding there was no accidental slip or omission.

• Correction Of Judgment
• Interest Awards
• Vat Refunds
• Slip Rule
• Judicial Discretion
• Correction-of-judgment