Wakilii

Grofin Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 14 of 2023)

Tribunal · [2023] UGTAT 27 · 2023 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of taxation decision; respondent raised preliminary objections on time bar and non-payment of 30% of tax assessed
Decision
The matter proceeded to hearing on merits following the second ruling that the application was filed within time

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 issued two rulings on preliminary objections. In the first ruling, the Tribunal held that the application was time-barred because it was filed seven years after the objection decision of 12 January 2016, and the applicant had not paid the requisite 30% of the tax assessed. In the second ruling (following payment of the 30%), the Tribunal held that the Commissioner's letter of 5 December 2022 rejecting the applicant's request for Alternative Dispute Resolution and directing payment of tax was itself a taxation decision, and that the application filed on 20 January 2023 was within time when computed using Order 51 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

The matter proceeded to hearing on merits following the second ruling that the application was filed within time

Facts

Grofin Uganda Limited, a development fund manager, was assessed by Uganda Revenue Authority for additional income tax of UGX 32,245,292 for March 2013 under PAYE to balance its ledger. The applicant objected on 2 November 2015. On 12 January 2016, URA issued an objection decision disallowing the objection but stating that no tax was payable. In 2020, the applicant discovered the assessment still reflected on its ledger. In September 2022, the applicant requested Alternative Dispute Resolution to expunge the assessment. On 5 December 2022, the Commissioner rejected the ADR request and directed the applicant to pay UGX 50,778,496.63 as outstanding PAYE tax liability. The applicant filed an application for review on 20 January 2023. URA raised preliminary objections that the application was filed out of time and that the applicant had not paid 30% of the tax assessed.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for review was filed out of time?
  2. Whether the applicant had paid the requisite 30% of the tax in dispute?

Orders

  • First Ruling: Application dismissed with costs to the respondent on grounds that it was time-barred and the 30% had not been paid.
  • Second Ruling: Preliminary objection on time bar overruled; application found to have been filed within time.

Rules and key headnotes

Tax Appeals — Taxation Decision — Definition and Scope
A letter by the Commissioner rejecting a taxpayer's request for Alternative Dispute Resolution and directing payment of tax constitutes a taxation decision within the meaning of Section 3 of the Tax Procedure Code Act and Section 1(k) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, as it is a decision left to the discretion of the Commissioner and creates a tax liability where previously none existed.
Tax Appeals — Time Limits — Computation During Christmas Break
Where the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act and Tax Procedure Code Act provide timelines for filing reviews but are silent on computation of time during the Christmas break when tribunal registries are closed, Order 51 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies by virtue of Rule 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules to exclude the period between 24 December and 15 January from the computation of time.
Tax Appeals — Statutory Time Limits — Mandatory Compliance
Timelines set by statutes such as the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities and must be strictly complied with; an application filed beyond the statutory 30-day period without obtaining extension of time is time-barred.
Tax Appeals — Payment of 30% — Mandatory Requirement
A taxpayer who has lodged a notice of objection to an assessment must, pending final resolution of the objection, pay 30% of the tax assessed or that part of the tax assessed not in dispute, whichever is greater, as required by Section 15(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act; this requirement is constitutional and mandatory.
Preliminary Objections — Nature and Requirements
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; examples include objections to jurisdiction and pleas of limitation.

Legislation cited (15)

  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.14(1)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.15(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 Act s.1(k)
  • Tax Procedure Code Act s.3
  • Tax Procedure Code Act s.25(1)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules r.10
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules r.30
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.15 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.51 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.51 r.4
  • Constitution of Uganda Art.17
  • Constitution of Uganda Art.152(1)

Cases cited (12)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1999)
  • Ahmed Said Ali v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 241 of 2022)
  • 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
  • Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority v Meera Investments Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2007)
  • Elgon Electronics v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCA No. 11 of 2007)
  • Samuel Mayanja v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCT No. 0017 of 2005)
  • Eco Bus Company v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 0035 of 2021)
  • A Better Place Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2019)
  • Century Bottling Company Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 032 of 2020)
  • Madhvani International S.A v Attorney General (SCCA No. 23 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Grofin Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 14 of 2023) 2023 UGTAT 27 (30 June 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.