Wakilii

Safari Clothing (U) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 26 of 2021)

Tribunal · [2021] UGTAT 29 · 2021 Application Dismissed 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 objection decisions before the Tax Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application for extension of time 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 Tribunal dismissed the application for extension of time. The applicant failed to provide justifiable reasons for the delay. Once an objection decision is made by the Commissioner, the authority becomes functus officio and the taxpayer must file an application in the Tribunal within 30 days. The applicant's attempt to seek a further review from the Commissioner after receiving objection decisions was not a valid reason for failing to file within the statutory time limit.

Outcome

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs

Facts

Safari Clothing (U) Limited was assessed for income tax and VAT by Uganda Revenue Authority. The applicant objected to the assessments, which were disallowed by the respondent. The respondent issued additional assessments in its objection decisions. The applicant then sought a review of the objection decisions from the Commissioner Domestic Taxes on 6 April 2021. The applicant did not file an application in the Tax Appeals Tribunal within the statutory 30-day period. Instead, it filed this application for extension of time, contending that it was awaiting the Commissioner's response to its review request. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had not shown sufficient cause for the delay.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause to warrant an extension of time to file an application for review of objection decisions before the Tax Appeals Tribunal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Tax Appeals — Extension of Time — Statutory Time Limits
An application for review to the Tax Appeals Tribunal must be made within 30 days of the taxpayer being notified of the taxation decision, and the Tribunal may extend time only upon application in writing and for reasonable cause.
Tax Appeals — Functus Officio — Commissioner's Objection Decision
Once a Commissioner has made an objection decision, the Commissioner becomes functus officio and cannot review that decision pursuant to a further objection by the taxpayer. The taxpayer must file an application in the Tax Appeals Tribunal and cannot delay filing by seeking a further review from the same authority.
Extension of Time — Burden of Proof — Justifiable Cause
A party seeking extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court or tribunal. The applicant must provide justifiable reasons for the delay, and meetings or discussions held after an objection decision that do not alter it may not benefit the taxpayer where time limits are concerned.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(1)(c)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(2)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.16(7)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunals (Procedure) Rules r.11(6)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunals (Procedure) Rules r.12
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
  • Constitution of Uganda art.126(2)(e)

Cases cited (5)

  • Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi (Civil Application No. 255 of 1997)
  • Manuchar Kenya Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Tax (Appeal No. E067 of 2020)
  • George Mulindwa v Kisubika Joseph (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Safari Clothing (Uganda) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2020)
  • Cable Corporation (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Safari Clothing (U) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 26 of 2021) 2021 UGTAT 29 (22 July 2021)
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.