Wakilii

Century Bottling Company Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No 32 of 2020)

Tribunal · [2020] UGTAT 12 · 2020 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Commissioner General's discretion to refuse payment of tax in instalments and for temporary injunction restraining tax collection pending main application
Decision
Application granted; applicant permitted to pay 30% of assessed tax in instalments and granted temporary injunction restraining tax collection pending main application

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Tribunal held that it has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner General's decision rejecting a request to pay tax in instalments, as such a decision constitutes a taxation decision. The Commissioner General's refusal to permit instalment payment during the COVID-19 pandemic was found to be Wednesbury unreasonable. The Tribunal interpreted section 15 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act to require payment of 30% of assessed tax pending final resolution by the Tribunal, not before filing. The applicant was granted permission to pay in four monthly instalments and a temporary injunction restraining tax collection pending the main application.

Outcome

Application granted; applicant permitted to pay 30% of assessed tax in instalments and granted temporary injunction restraining tax collection pending main application

Facts

Century Bottling Company Limited, a Coca Cola franchise bottler, was assessed tax liability of UGX 58,141,883,182 following a 2019 audit covering January 2014 to December 2017. The assessment comprised Local Excise Duty, Value Added Tax and Corporate Income Tax. The applicant objected on 16 January 2020; the objection was disallowed on 12 April 2020. The applicant filed TAT Application No. 33 of 2020 for review. Section 15 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act requires payment of 30% of assessed tax or the undisputed portion, whichever is higher, pending resolution. On 16 April 2020, the applicant requested to pay 30% in instalments, citing COVID-19 impacts including a 55% drop in sales between March and April 2020 and operations at a fraction of installed capacity. The Commissioner General rejected this request on 23 April 2020 and issued a final demand on 17 April 2020 requiring full payment.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tax Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner General's decision rejecting a request to pay 30% of assessed tax in instalments.
  2. Whether the Commissioner General's rejection of the request to pay tax in instalments constitutes a taxation decision within the meaning of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act.
  3. Whether the Commissioner General's exercise of discretion in rejecting the request to pay tax in instalments was irrational and unreasonable in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  4. Whether payment of 30% of assessed tax is a pre-requisite to filing an application before the Tax Appeals Tribunal.
  5. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction restraining tax collection.

Orders

  • The applicant is permitted to pay 30% of the tax assessed in four equal monthly instalments, with the first payment on 6 July 2020.
  • The entire sum being 30% of the tax assessed will immediately become due and payable if the applicant fails to pay any instalment by the sixth day of each month.
  • The applicant is granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from collecting the tax assessed in the sum of UGX 58,141,883,182 until final determination of TAT Application No. 33 of 2020.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of TAT Application No. 33 of 2020.

Rules and key headnotes

Tax Appeals Tribunal — Jurisdiction — Review of Commissioner General's Discretionary Decisions
A decision by the Commissioner General rejecting a taxpayer's request to pay assessed tax in instalments is a taxation decision within the meaning of section 1(k) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act and section 1 of the Tax Procedures Code Act, as it constitutes a decision involving the exercise of discretion, and the Tax Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction to review such exercise of discretion.
Judicial Review — Wednesbury Unreasonableness — Exercise of Discretion
A decision by a public authority is Wednesbury unreasonable where it is so outrageous in its defiance of logic that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question could have arrived at it. A refusal to permit instalment payment of a substantial tax liability during an economic crisis affecting the taxpayer's sector, where the authority has statutory power to grant such requests and has done so in less precarious times for smaller amounts, constitutes Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Tax Appeals — Section 15 Tax Appeals Tribunal Act — Timing of Payment Requirement
The requirement under section 15 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act to pay 30% of assessed tax or the undisputed portion applies pending final resolution of the objection by the Tribunal, not pending the objection decision by the Commissioner. The term 'objection' in section 15 is used in its ordinary sense to mean challenging or disagreeing with something, not in the technical sense of objections against tax decisions under section 24 of the Tax Procedures Code Act. Payment of 30% is not a pre-requisite to filing an application before the Tribunal.
Statutory Interpretation — Ordinary Meaning — Technical Meaning
Words in a statute are to be understood in their ordinary, everyday meanings unless the context indicates that they bear a technical sense. Where no ambiguity exists in the use of terms in the primary statute, there is no justification to look to another statute for interpretive assistance.
Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Irreparable Injury
In determining whether to grant a temporary injunction, the court must be satisfied that there are serious questions to be tried between the parties with a probability that the question will be decided in favour of the applicant. The fact that a respondent statutory body may have access to public funds to pay damages does not automatically defeat a claim of irreparable injury, as prudence and good sense require minimising increases to the national debt and avoiding burdens on the State that can be prevented.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (11)

  • Uganda Projects Implementation Management Centre (UPIMAC) v Uganda Revenue Authority (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2009)
  • Metcash Trading Co. Ltd v Commissioner for South African Revenue Services and another
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Victor Construction Works Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 601 of 2010)
  • URA v Rabbo Enterprises Ltd
  • MTN (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 15 of 2018)
  • Twinomuhangi v Kabaale District Local Government Council [2006] HCB Vol. 1
  • Twinomuhangi Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council [2006] HCB Vol. 1 30
  • Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
  • Digital Solutions Ltd v MTN Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 546 of 2004)
  • Cape Brandy Syndicate case

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Century Bottling Company Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No 32 of 2020) 2020 UGTAT 12 (30 June 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.