Wakilii

Conta Plast Ventures Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 11 of 2023)

Tribunal · [2023] UGTAT 16 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file an application for review of a taxation decision before the Tax Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 dismissed the application for extension of time to file an application for review of a taxation decision. The Tribunal held that pursuing Alternative Dispute Resolution does not constitute reasonable cause for extension of time because Regulation 4(3) of the Tax Procedures Code (Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure) Regulations expressly provides that ADR shall not affect or negate the statutory timelines for filing applications before the Tribunal. The preliminary objection regarding non-payment of 30% of the tax assessed was overruled as premature.

Outcome

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

Conta Plast Ventures Limited, a plastics manufacturer, was issued with an additional VAT assessment of Shs. 758,451.42 and penal tax of Shs. 66,005,085 for June 2022 by Uganda Revenue Authority. URA disallowed input VAT claimed by the applicant on grounds of purported fictitious invoices. On 12 September 2022, the applicant objected to a VAT assessment of Shs. 33,002,543 and penal tax of Shs. 66,005,085. On 6 December 2022, URA issued its objection decision disallowing the objections. The applicant filed an application on 25 May 2023 for extension of time to file an application for review of the taxation decision, contending that the delay was due to pursuing Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for an extension of time to file the main application to review the taxation decision should be granted.
  2. Whether pursuing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) constitutes reasonable cause for extension of time under the Tax Appeals Tribunals Act.
  3. Whether the preliminary objection that the applicant has not paid 30% of the tax in dispute should be sustained.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Tax Law — Extension of Time — Alternative Dispute Resolution Not Reasonable Cause
Pursuing Alternative Dispute Resolution does not constitute reasonable cause for extension of time to file an application for review of a taxation decision before the Tax Appeals Tribunal because Regulation 4(3) of the Tax Procedures Code (Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure) Regulations expressly provides that ADR shall not have any effect on or negate the statutory timelines for filing applications.
Tax Law — Statutory Timelines — Mandatory Nature
Timelines set by statutes for filing applications for review of taxation decisions are matters of substance and must be strictly complied with. An application for review of a taxation decision must be lodged within 30 days after being served with notice of the objection decision under section 16(1)(c) of the Tax Appeals Tribunals Act and section 25(1) of the Tax Procedures Code Act.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Premature Objections
A preliminary objection that an applicant has not paid 30% of the tax assessed under section 15(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunals Act is premature where the applicant has only filed an application for extension of time and has not yet filed the substantive application for review, because the amount in dispute cannot be ascertained without the substantive application.
Administrative Law — Statutory Interpretation — Plain Meaning Rule
Where a statute or subsidiary legislation is clear, the words must be given their ordinary meaning. Regulation 4(3) of the Tax Procedures Code (Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure) Regulations clearly spells out that the time within which to file an application before the Tribunal shall not be affected by ADR proceedings.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (5)

  • Meghani v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2021)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1999)
  • Uganda Projects Implementation and Management Centre v Uganda Revenue Authority (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1999)
  • Metchash Trading Co. Ltd. v Commissioner for South African Revenue Services and another
  • Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1996] EA 696

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Conta Plast Ventures Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 11 of 2023) 2023 UGTAT 16 (3 August 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.