Sharad v Uganda Revenue Authority [2024] UGTAT 4
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 held that the letting of fully furnished apartments with amenities including internet, DSTV, security, standby generator, gym, swimming pool, and onsite management constituted an active exploitation of property generating significant added value, not a passive letting of immovable property. The activity did not fall within the VAT exemption for residential property under Schedule 3 paragraph 1(f) of the VAT Act. The property qualified as serviced apartments subject to VAT. Application dismissed.
Outcome
Application dismissed; VAT assessment upheld
Facts
The Applicant owns property at Plot 1A Baker Road, Nakasero, comprising 32 furnished apartments rented to expatriates, diplomats, and UN officials on long-term tenancies ranging from one to nearly three years. URA assessed the Applicant for VAT of UGX 230,738,527 on rental income, treating the property as serviced apartments. The Applicant objected, arguing the income was from residential property exempt under Schedule 3 paragraph 1(f) of the VAT Act. Each apartment is fully furnished with kitchen appliances, washing machines, dining and living room furniture, beds, and air conditioning. The landlord provides internet, DSTV Access Package, common security, standby generator, lift maintenance, parking, cleaning of common areas, free gym and swimming pool access, onsite duty manager, and 24-hour reception. Tenants pay their own electricity and gas; some agreements show rent as VAT-inclusive but no VAT was remitted. URA upheld the assessment after consulting tenants and reviewing tenancy agreements. The Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review.
Issues
- Whether the Applicant is liable to pay the VAT assessed on rental income from furnished apartments at Plot 1A Baker Road, Nakasero.
- Whether the letting of furnished apartments with amenities constitutes a supply by way of leasing or letting of immovable property exempt from VAT under Schedule 3 paragraph 1(f) of the VAT Act.
- Whether the property in question constitutes serviced apartments subject to VAT.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- The letting or leasing of the property in question is not VAT exempt.
- The property at Plot 1A Baker Road, Nakasero qualifies as serviced apartments subject to VAT.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Value Added Tax Act Schedule 3 paragraph 1(f)
- Value Added Tax Act Schedule 3 paragraph 1(f)(v)
- Evidence Act s.103
Cases cited (6)
- Comfort Homes v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 66 of 2020)
- Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Taxi Operators and Drivers Association (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2015)
- Embassy Supermarket Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application No. 114 of 2021)
- J.K Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (SCCA No. 4 of 1994)
- Uganda Revenue Authority v Siraje Hassan Kajura (SCCA No. 9 of 2015)
- Inland Revenue Commissioners v Barclay Curle & Co Ltd (1980) 1 All ER 80
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.