Baliddawa v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application 52 of 2023)
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 upheld a preliminary objection that the application for review was filed out of time. The applicant received the objection decision on 12 March 2022 and was required to file the application within 30 days by 12 April 2022 under s.16(1)(c) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. The application was instead filed on 3 April 2023, one year late, with no extension of time sought. Statutory timelines are matters of substantive law and must be strictly complied with. The application was dismissed with costs.
Outcome
Application dismissed for being filed out of time
Facts
The applicant operates a real estate business and was assessed for rental income tax of UGX 21,702,146 for the years 2017/2018 and 2018/2019. On 14 December 2021, the applicant objected to the assessment. On 12 March 2022, the Uganda Revenue Authority issued an objection decision disallowing the objection and maintaining the tax as assessed. The applicant filed an application for review with the Tax Appeals Tribunal on 3 April 2023. When the matter came up for scheduling on 17 August 2023, the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was filed out of time. The tribunal directed written submissions on the preliminary objection. The applicant did not file written submissions.
Issues
- Whether the application for review was filed out of time and therefore improperly before the tribunal.
- Whether the preliminary objection should be upheld and the application dismissed.
Orders
- Preliminary objection allowed.
- Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.14(1)
- Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(1)(c)
- Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(2)
- Tax Procedures Code Act s.25(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 28
Cases cited (2)
- Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)
- Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1996] EA 696
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.