Wakilii

SWT Tanners Limited and 13 Others v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 229 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court (Commercial Division) judgment dismissing a suit challenging the imposition of VAT on imported rice
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court judgment dismissing the suit upheld and injunction pending appeal lapsed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 5 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 5 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that the imported rice was processed and ready for consumption, and therefore did not fall within the exempt supplies of the Second Schedule to the VAT Act or the exempt imports of the Fifth Schedule to the East African Community Customs Management Act, so it was chargeable to 18% VAT. The Court found that the discrimination and GATT 1994 arguments were raised for the first time on appeal, were not pleaded, not the subject of any High Court decision, and unsupported by evidence, and so could not be entertained. The VAT (Amendment) Act No 2 of 2015 post-dated the suit and was inapplicable.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court judgment dismissing the suit upheld and injunction pending appeal lapsed

Facts

The 14 appellants were importers of rice from Pakistan and elsewhere, imported ready for consumption without further processing in Uganda. In 2007 the Commissioner General issued a Practice Note classifying imported rice as unprocessed agricultural produce and thus exempt from VAT under the Second Schedule of the VAT Act. Following the VAT (Amendment) Act 2014, which repealed paragraph 1(f) of the Third Schedule that had zero-rated cereals grown and milled in Uganda, the respondent on 19 November 2014 issued Practice Note URA/VAT/PN 2/14 subjecting the supply of both local and imported rice to 18% VAT and revoking the 2007 Note. The appellants filed HCCS No 880 of 2014 seeking declarations that the Practice Note was not binding, that imported rice was not chargeable to 18% VAT, and that the levy was arbitrary and unlawful. The High Court found the rice processed, not exempt, and chargeable to 18% VAT, and dismissed the suit with costs. The appellants appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellants could challenge the imposition of 18% VAT on imported rice by way of an original suit in the High Court rather than through the statutory objection and Tax Appeals Tribunal procedure under the VAT Act.
  2. Whether the appellants could raise, for the first time on appeal, the argument that the VAT Act conflicts with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 and unlawfully discriminates against imported rice.
  3. Whether the imported processed rice was chargeable to 18% VAT as a non-exempt supply and non-exempt import under the VAT Act.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The injunction issued pending appeal lapses.
  • The respondent shall be paid costs of the appeal by the appellants.

Rules and key headnotes

Value Added Tax — Exempt Supplies and Exempt Imports — Processed Rice
Rice that has been processed and is ready for human consumption does not fall within the exempt supplies in the Second Schedule to the VAT Act nor the exempt imports in the Fifth Schedule to the East African Community Customs Management Act, and is therefore chargeable to VAT at the standard rate of 18%.
Tax Disputes — Statutory Objection Procedure — Circumvention by Original Suit
In tax matters the High Court exercises an appellate jurisdiction over objection decisions of the Commissioner General and Tax Appeals Tribunal decisions; a taxpayer who files an original suit challenging an assessment or practice note circumvents the statutory procedures under the VAT Act and the Tax Appeals Tribunals Act.
Appeals — New Point of Law Raised for the First Time on Appeal
An appellate court may allow a new point of law to be taken for the first time on appeal only where it is satisfied beyond doubt that it has before it all the facts bearing on the new contention and that no evidence could have been adduced at trial that would have defeated the point; a challenge requiring fresh evidence and not pleaded or decided below cannot be raised on appeal.
Appeals — Grounds Must Arise from a Decision of the Lower Court
An appeal lies only from a decision of the High Court; where the trial court made no decision on a matter, and observations made were merely obiter and not part of the controversy, such matter cannot form the basis of a competent ground of appeal.
Treaties and Domestic Law — GATT 1994 and section 76(1) of the VAT Act
Although section 76(1) of the VAT Act provides that the terms of a treaty prevail where inconsistent with the Act, a claim that domestic VAT law discriminates against imports contrary to the GATT 1994 fails where the impugned preferential provision has been repealed and no evidentiary or pleaded basis for discrimination exists.

Legislation cited (29)

Cases cited (12)

  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Makula International v Cardinal Emmanuel Nsubuga [1980] HCB 11
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Siraje Hassan Kajura (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2015)
  • Attorney General v Florence Baliraine (Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2003)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Peters v Sunday Post Limited [1958] 1 EA 424
  • Sullivan v Ali Mohammed (1959) E.A 239
  • Tanganyika Farmers Association Ltd v Unyamwezi Development Corporation Ltd [1960] 1 EA 620
  • The Tasmania (1), [1890] 15 A.C. 223
  • Ex parte Firth (2) (1882), 19 Ch. D. 419
  • Alwi Abdulrehman Saggaf v Abed Ali Algeredi [1961] 1 EA 767
  • Perkowski v. City of Wellington Corporation [1958] 3 All E.R. 368

Cases citing this judgment (5)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

SWT Tanners Limited and 13 Others v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2019) [2022] UGCA 229 (16 September 2022)
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.