Wakilii

CIC Africa (Uganda) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application 275 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2023] UGTAT 15 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of tax objection decision dismissed on preliminary objection that application was time barred
Decision
Application dismissed as time barred

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

Held that an application for review of a tax objection decision filed after pursuing Alternative Dispute Resolution was time barred. The 30-day statutory period for filing an application to the Tax Appeals Tribunal runs from the date of the objection decision and is not affected by subsequent ADR proceedings. Regulation 4(3) of the Tax Procedures Code (Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure) Regulations expressly provides that ADR does not extend the time for filing with the Tribunal. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed as time barred

Facts

CIC Africa (Uganda) Limited, a holding company with 10% shareholding in two insurance subsidiaries, was audited by Uganda Revenue Authority in 2019. URA disallowed loans acquired from the parent company for capitalizing subsidiaries and issued an additional income tax assessment of UGX 2,551,630,452 on 11 December 2019. The applicant objected. On 24 September 2021, URA issued an objection decision partially allowing the objection and reducing the tax liability to UGX 732,430,452. The applicant sought further review under Alternative Dispute Resolution, which resulted in a revised liability of UGX 456,545,967 communicated on 21 October 2022. The applicant objected again on 25 November 2022. On 14 December 2022, URA informed the applicant it could not further review the decision and that the 21 October 2022 decision was final. The applicant filed this application on 19 December 2022. URA raised a preliminary objection that the application was time barred.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is time barred?
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Main application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Tax Law — Tax Appeals — Time Limits — Effect of Alternative Dispute Resolution on Statutory Time Limits
Where a taxpayer pursues Alternative Dispute Resolution after receiving an objection decision, the statutory 30-day period for filing an application with the Tax Appeals Tribunal is not extended or affected by the ADR proceedings. Regulation 4(3) of the Tax Procedures Code (Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure) Regulations expressly provides that the time within which a taxpayer is required to file an application with the Tribunal shall not be affected by the alternative dispute resolution procedure.
Tax Law — Tax Appeals — Time Limits — Computation of Time for Filing Application
The 30-day period for filing an application for review with the Tax Appeals Tribunal runs from the date of service of the objection decision, not from the date of any subsequent ADR decision or amended assessment. A taxpayer who fails to file within 30 days of the objection decision and instead pursues ADR without filing an application for extension of time is deemed to have sat on its rights.
Tax Law — Tax Appeals — Objection Decisions — Functus Officio
Where an objection decision has been made by the Commissioner, the Commissioner becomes functus officio. A taxpayer dissatisfied with an ADR outcome cannot keep objecting in perpetuity. ADR is an administrative mechanism that does not negate the rights or procedures of the Tax Appeals Tribunal.
Administrative Law — Statutory Time Limits — Strict Compliance
Timelines set by statutes are a matter of substantive law and not mere technicalities and must be strictly complied with. A party seeking to file outside the statutory period must apply for extension of time in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Raising Points of Law
A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. Any party is entitled to raise by pleadings any point of law which shall be disposed of by the court at or after the hearing.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (4)

  • Cable Corporation (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2011)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Limited [1996] EA 696
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Consolidated Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1999)
  • Conta Plast Ventures Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 275 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

CIC Africa (Uganda) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application 275 of 2022) 2023 UGTAT 15 (6 October 2023)
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.