Enviro Serve Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No 24 of 2017)
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 Tribunal held that a taxable person registered under the VAT Act is entitled to input VAT credit from the effective date of registration even where taxable supplies have not yet been made, provided the input VAT was incurred for use in the business. Section 28(8) applies only to mixed supplies, not standard-rated supplies. A taxpayer is not obliged to ensure suppliers remit VAT; collection is URA's responsibility. The applicant was entitled to input VAT of Shs. 285,972,696 for October 2013 to June 2014, VAT of Shs. 123,930,226 for the year ending June 2016, and input VAT of Shs. 70,324,337 from verified supplier invoices.
Outcome
Application granted with VAT refunds totalling Shs. 480,227,259 awarded to the applicant
Facts
Enviroserv (U) Ltd, a waste management company incorporated in June 2013, registered for VAT on 1 October 2013 in anticipation of a contract with Total E&P Uganda B.V. The applicant began constructing a landfill in Hoima and commenced operations in October 2014, issuing its first invoice in January 2015. The applicant filed a VAT refund claim of Shs. 1,304,681,817 for October 2013 to June 2016. URA disallowed Shs. 1,030,625,893, including: (a) Shs. 285,972,696 input VAT for October 2013 to June 2014 on grounds the applicant had not made taxable supplies; (b) Shs. 123,930,226 due to variance between audited financial statements and VAT returns for June 2015; and (c) Shs. 90,286,003 because suppliers had not declared the VAT. The parties reached a partial consent resolving some issues, leaving Shs. 500,188,925 in dispute. The applicant challenged the disallowances before the Tax Appeals Tribunal.
Issues
- Whether the applicant is entitled to a VAT refund?
- Whether the respondent is entitled to deny the applicant's VAT claim of Shs. 452,560,157?
- Whether the applicant was entitled to input VAT credit of Shs. 285,972,696 for the period of October 2013 to June 2014?
- Whether the applicant properly accounted for and declared VAT on its revenue for the period reviewed October 2013 to June 2016?
- Whether the penalty imposed by the respondent on the declared VAT on its revenue on imported services was lawful?
- What are the remedies available to the parties?
Orders
- The applicant is entitled to a VAT refund of Shs. 285,972,696 with interest for the period October 2013 to June 2014.
- Though the applicant did not properly account for the year ending June 2016, it was entitled to VAT of Shs. 123,930,226.
- The applicant is entitled to a VAT credit of Shs. 70,324,337 being the input VAT charged to the applicant by its suppliers.
- The applicant is awarded the costs of this application.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (38)
- Value Added Tax Act s.6
- Value Added Tax Act s.7
- Value Added Tax Act s.7(1)(a)
- Value Added Tax Act s.7(1)(b)
- Value Added Tax Act s.7(1)(c)
- Value Added Tax Act s.7(2)
- Value Added Tax Act s.7(6)
- Value Added Tax Act s.8
- Value Added Tax Act s.8(2)
- Value Added Tax Act s.8(3)
- Value Added Tax Act s.9(4)
- Value Added Tax Act s.9(4)(b)
- Value Added Tax Act s.9(5)
- Value Added Tax Act s.14
- Value Added Tax Act s.14(1)(c)
- Value Added Tax Act s.14(1)(c)(i)
- Value Added Tax Act s.18(1)
- Value Added Tax Act s.25
- Value Added Tax Act s.28
- Value Added Tax Act s.28(1)
- Value Added Tax Act s.28(1)(a)
- Value Added Tax Act s.28(3)
- Value Added Tax Act s.28(3)(a)
- Value Added Tax Act s.28(7)
- Value Added Tax Act s.28(7)(a)
- Value Added Tax Act s.28(8)
- Value Added Tax Act s.29
- Value Added Tax Act s.30
- Value Added Tax Act s.31
- Value Added Tax Act s.34(8)
- Value Added Tax Act s.34A(1)(a)
- Value Added Tax Act s.42(5)
- Value Added Tax Act s.65(3)
- Value Added Tax Act s.65(6)(a)
- Value Added Tax Act s.65(6)(b)
- Value Added Tax Act Fourth Schedule s.1(f)
- Income Tax Act s.1(zzz)
- International Accounting Standards IAS 18
Cases cited (5)
- Posta Bank (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 18 of 2008)
- Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2011)
- East African Property Holdings (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit No. 247 of 2013)
- Tullow Uganda Ltd & Anor v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCS No. 445 of 2015)
- Target Well Control Uganda Ltd v The Commissioner General (HCCS No. 751 of 2015)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.