Wakilii

Matovu v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Cause 15 of 2023)

Tribunal · [2023] UGTAT 42 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file a main application for review of tax decision before the Tax Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application dismissed with costs

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 an application for extension of time to file a review application where the applicant sought to file two years after the objection decision. The Tribunal held that the applicant's illness from June to December 2022 did not constitute reasonable cause because it occurred a year after the objection decision and the applicant failed to explain why he did not file within the prescribed period before his illness or after his discharge. Statutory time limits are matters of substantive law and must be strictly complied with.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant, an importer of general merchandise, applied for a VAT refund on 4 November 2020. The Uganda Revenue Authority conducted an audit and issued a VAT assessment of UGX 22,035,011 and additional VAT assessments of UGX 247,654,744 on 8 April 2021. The applicant objected in June 2021. On 22 July 2021, the respondent issued an objection decision disallowing the objection. The applicant was required to file an application for review within 30 days, by 22 August 2021, but did not do so. The applicant claimed he suffered from Covid-19 complications and was hospitalised from June to December 2022. He filed the application for extension of time on 14 July 2023, nearly two years after the objection decision.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a justifiable cause to extend time for the applicant to lodge an application for review of tax decision?
  2. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • Application for extension of time dismissed.
  • Request to validate Application 109 of 2021 declined.
  • Costs awarded against the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Tax Law — Extension of Time — Reasonable Cause — Statutory Time Limits
An application for extension of time to file a review of a tax decision must demonstrate reasonable cause for the delay. Illness may constitute reasonable cause under Rule 11(6) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, but the applicant must explain the entire period of delay. Where illness occurs long after the statutory deadline has passed and the applicant fails to explain why the application was not filed before the illness or promptly after recovery, the illness does not constitute reasonable cause.
Tax Law — Extension of Time — Statutory Time Limits — Substantive Law
Time limits set by statute for filing applications before the Tax Appeals Tribunal are matters of substantive law, not mere technicalities, and must be strictly complied with. The Tribunal cannot grant an extension beyond the prescribed six-month period under section 16(7) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act where the applicant has not demonstrated reasonable cause for the entire period of delay.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(2)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(1)(c)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(7)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.14(1)
  • Tax Appeals (Procedure) Rules r.11
  • Tax Appeals (Procedure) Rules r.11(1)
  • Tax Appeals (Procedure) Rules r.11(6)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
  • Tax Procedure Code Act s.25

Cases cited (10)

  • Kenya Revenue Authority & 2 Others v Mount Kenya Bottlers & 4 Others Application 12 (E021) of 2021
  • Umeme Limited v Justice Singh Choudry (Miscellaneous Application No. 736 of 2021)
  • Vagal (U) Ltd v Godfrey Ssentongo (Miscellaneous Application No. 72 of 2020)
  • Tight Security Ltd v Chartis Uganda Insurance Company Ltd and Brazafric Enterprises Ltd (Application No. 8 of 2014)
  • Farid Meghani v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 185 of 2020)
  • Gideon Mosa Onchati v Kenya Oil Co. 2017 eKLR
  • Victoria Flowers v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 12 of 2008)
  • Cable Corporation (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCA No. 1 of 2011)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Limited (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)
  • Tight Security Limited v Chartis Uganda Insurance Co. Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Matovu v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Cause 15 of 2023) 2023 UGTAT 42 (4 September 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.