Wakilii

AIRTEL Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No 10 of 2019)

Tribunal · [2020] UGTAT 9 · 2020 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to add an additional ground for determination in a tax appeal
Decision
Application to add additional ground allowed with costs to the applicant

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Tax Appeals Tribunal held that issues of time limits are matters of substantive law that can be raised at any time during a trial, and that the Tribunal has discretion under s.16(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act to allow additional grounds beyond those in the objection notice. The Tribunal allowed the application to add a ground on time limits, finding that raising it at the beginning of the trial gave the respondent ample time to respond and did not prejudice the respondent, while avoiding multiplicity of suits.

Outcome

Application to add additional ground allowed with costs to the applicant

Facts

Airtel Uganda Limited acquired Warid Telecom on 18 February 2014. In 2018, Uganda Revenue Authority audited the applicant for the period July 2007 to June 2014, disallowing input tax credits, adjusting withholding tax, and issuing an additional assessment of UGX 208,817,971. The applicant appealed to the Tax Appeals Tribunal. At the scheduling conference, the applicant applied to add an additional ground for determination concerning whether the assessments were time-barred under s.23(2)(b) of the Tax Procedure Code Act, which requires additional assessments to be made within three years. The respondent objected, arguing that s.16(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act limits appeals to grounds stated in the objection notice and that the new ground would prejudice the respondent and prolong litigation.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to allow the applicant to add an additional ground concerning time limits for issuing tax assessments.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Costs awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Tax Appeals — Additional Grounds — Discretion of Tribunal
Under s.16(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, the Tribunal has discretion to allow an applicant to raise grounds beyond those stated in the taxation objection, and this discretion must be exercised judiciously to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from accident, inadvertence, or excusable mistake.
Tax Assessments — Time Limits — Substantive Law
Time limits for issuing tax assessments set by the Tax Procedure Code Act are matters of substantive law, not mere technicalities, and must be strictly complied with. Issues of time limits are points of substantive law that can be raised at any time during a trial without requiring leave from the Tribunal.
Natural Justice — Right to be Heard — Notice of Case
The right to be heard requires that a party know the case made against them, including what evidence and statements have been given affecting them, and be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. Issues of time limits should be raised at the beginning of trial to give the respondent ample time to prepare a defence.
Additional Assessments — Exceptions to Time Limits
Under s.32(2)(a) of the Tax Procedure Code Act, an additional assessment may be issued at any time if fraud, gross or wilful neglect has been committed, or if new information has been discovered, providing an exception to the three-year time limit for additional assessments.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (9)

  • Kasese Cobalt Company Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 28 of 2018)
  • Makula International Limited v His Eminence Cardinal Emmanuel Nsubuga (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 4 of 1981)
  • Cable Corporation v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2011)
  • Konde Mathias Zimula v Byarugaba Moses and Grace Nampijja (High Court Civil Suit No. 66 of 2007)
  • National Social Security Fund and another v Alcon International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Suit No. 15 of 2009)
  • Shah v Mbogo and another [1967] EA 116
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Consolidated Properties (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Toro Mityana Tea Company Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kanda v Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

AIRTEL Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No 10 of 2019) 2020 UGTAT 9 (20 May 2020)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.