Wakilii

Farola Supplies Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2023)

Tribunal · [2023] UGTAT 23 · 2023 Application Granted 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
Extension of time granted to file application for review of taxation decision

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 the applicant's failure to file the application within the statutory 30-day period was attributable to the default of its consultant and should not be visited upon the applicant. The Tribunal found that the applicant had exercised due diligence by seeking extension within six months of the taxation decision and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent. The application for extension of time was granted under Rule 11(6)(c) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules.

Outcome

Extension of time granted to file application for review of taxation decision

Facts

Farola Supplies Limited, a company dealing in importation and sale of locally sourced products, received a tax assessment of UGX 363,841,600 from Uganda Revenue Authority on 31 May 2022. On 16 August 2022, a Third-Party Agency Notice was issued. The applicant objected on 25 August 2022. On 17 November 2022, the applicant received an objection decision notice disallowing the objection on grounds that supporting documentary evidence was not provided. The applicant was required to file an application for review within 30 days of receiving the objection decision, i.e., by 17 December 2022. The applicant initially instructed tax consultants who failed to lodge the application. Upon discovering this failure, the applicant engaged new lawyers who filed the application for extension of time on 17 January 2023, 29 days after the deadline but within the six-month statutory limit.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file an application for review of a taxation decision before the Tribunal.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time allowed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Tax Law — Extension of Time — Statutory Time Limits — Application Within Six Months
An application for review of a taxation decision must be made within 30 days of being served with notice of the decision, but the Tax Appeals Tribunal may extend time upon written application provided the application for extension is brought within six months of the taxation decision.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Reasonable Cause — Failure of Counsel or Consultant
Failure or mistake of counsel or a consultant constitutes reasonable cause for granting an extension of time where the client has exercised due diligence and the default should not be visited upon the client.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Factors for Consideration — Length of Delay, Reason, Chances of Success, Prejudice
In determining whether to grant an extension of time, the Tribunal must consider the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the possibility or chances of success of the intended application, and the degree of prejudice to the other party.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.14(1)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(1)(c)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(2)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(7)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules r.11(6)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules r.11(2)
  • Tax Procedures Code Act s.25(1)

Cases cited (16)

  • Gideon Mosa Onchati v Kenya Oil Co Ltd and another 2017 eKLR
  • Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Dar es Salaam v The Chairman Bunju Village Government and others
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (SCCA 8 of 1998)
  • Aluma Michael Bayo & 2 Ors v Okuti (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0012 of 2016)
  • National Forestry Authority v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 4 of 2021)
  • Capt. Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (SCCA 14 of 2001)
  • K and K Amman Ltd v Mount Kenya Game Ranch and others [2003] 1 EA 105 (CAK)
  • Farid Meghani v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Miscellaneous Application 185 of 2020)
  • Cable Corporation (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Civil Appeal 1 of 2011)
  • URA v NSSF (Miscellaneous Application 117 of 2021)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Limited (Civil Appeal 75)
  • Farid Menghani v URA (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2021)
  • Victoria Flowers v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 12 of 2008)
  • Tight Security Limited v Chartis Uganda Insurance Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2014)
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Civil Appeal 12 of 2014)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Limited (Civil Appeal 31 of 2000)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Farola Supplies Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2023) 2023 UGTAT 23 (14 March 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.