Wakilii

Kasai Plascon (U) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No TAT 135 of 2020)

Tribunal · [2020] UGTAT 28 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review URA's decision rejecting extension of time to lodge objection to tax assessment
Decision
Application 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 Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the Commissioner General of URA acted within his discretion and did not act illegally, irrationally, or with procedural impropriety when rejecting the applicant's request for extension of time to lodge an objection. The applicant failed to provide convincing reasons for the 33-day delay and did not adduce evidence showing that the COVID-19 lockdown prevented it from filing the application on time, especially since it paid principal tax during the lockdown period.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

Kansai Plascon (Uganda) Limited, a paint manufacturer, was assessed additional tax of UGX 68,927,551,086 by URA on 26 February 2020, comprising principal tax of UGX 14,288,954,488 plus interest and penalties. On 20 March 2020, the applicant committed to pay the principal tax in instalments and applied for waiver of penalties and interest under section 66(1) of the Tax Procedure Code Act. On 14 April 2020, the applicant paid principal tax of UGX 14,229,295,922. On 13 and 14 May 2020, the applicant applied for extension of time to lodge an objection, citing need for additional time to obtain documents from previous shareholders and delays caused by the COVID-19 lockdown. URA rejected the extension request on 14 and 15 May 2020, stating the application was filed outside the mandatory time limit, the principal tax had been paid, and the grounds were unsatisfactory. The applicant then filed this application in the Tribunal on 18 September 2020 challenging URA's rejection decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent was justified to refuse to grant an extension of time to lodge an objection to the tax assessment.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Extension of Time — Application After Expiry of Statutory Period — Interpretation Act s.34(3)
Where a statute prescribes time for doing an act and gives power to an authority to extend that time but is silent on when the application for extension must be made, the authority may exercise the power to extend time even after the expiration of the prescribed period, pursuant to section 34(3) of the Interpretation Act.
Judicial Review — Grounds for Review — Illegality, Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety
In reviewing an administrative decision, a tribunal or court must determine whether the decision is tainted with illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Irrationality exists where there is such gross unreasonableness in the decision that no reasonable authority, addressing itself to the facts and law, would have made such a decision.
Extension of Time — Exercise of Discretion — Burden on Applicant
When the Commissioner exercises discretion on applications for extension of time under section 24(4) of the Tax Procedure Code Act, the applicant must show absence of dilatory conduct, provide convincing reasons for the delay, and demonstrate that the delay was not caused by the applicant's own ambivalent conduct or failure to act diligently.
Discretionary Powers — Exercise by Public Authorities — Standards of Review
Courts and tribunals are reluctant to interfere with a public authority's exercise of administrative discretion. Where a public body is given discretion by statute, courts will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion so long as it is exercised bona fide, reasonably, and is not influenced by extraneous considerations.
Extension of Time — COVID-19 Pandemic — Burden of Proof
While a tribunal may take judicial notice of the COVID-19 lockdown, the effect of the lockdown on a particular taxpayer can only be understood by adducing evidence. A taxpayer claiming the lockdown prevented compliance with statutory timelines must adduce evidence showing how the lockdown specifically affected their ability to comply, particularly where the taxpayer was able to conduct other business during the same period.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (14)

  • Mukula International v Cardinal Nsubuga (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Ojara v Okwera (Civil Application No. 23 of 2017)
  • Ganesh Engineering Works Limited and 3 others v Yamini Builders Ltd. [2020] eKLR
  • Shanti v Hindocha [1973] EA 207
  • Century Bottling Company v URA (Miscellaneous Application No. 32 of 2020)
  • Rutayisire and another v Uganda Revenue Authority
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1992] 2 EA 22
  • R V Wilkes (1770) 4 Burr 2527 at 2539
  • Breen V Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 2. Q.B 1
  • Mulji Jethawa V Partal Singh (1931) 13 LRK 1
  • Shah V Mbogo and another [1967] E.A 116
  • Twinomuhangi Pastoli V Kabale District Local Government Council, Katarishangwa Jack & Beebwajuba Mary [2006] HCB Vol. 1 p. 30
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Haji Mohammed Bagaliwo v Attorney General [1998-1990] HCB 136

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasai Plascon (U) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No TAT 135 of 2020) 2020 UGTAT 28 (11 September 2020)
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.