Wakilii

Uganda Revenue Authority v D M Consults Limited (Miscellaneous Application 67 of 2023)

Tribunal · [2023] UGTAT 68 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of tribunal's decision granting temporary injunction
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent; temporary injunction granted in Miscellaneous Application 45 of 2023 remains in force pending determination of the main application

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 4 citing cases on record, 4 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 Tax Appeals Tribunal held that it has jurisdiction to review its own decisions under sections 22(3) and 28 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, read with section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Tribunal dismissed the application for review, finding that the applicant failed to establish either an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence, as the applicant was aware of the status of the WHT exemption certificate at the time the temporary injunction was granted.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent; temporary injunction granted in Miscellaneous Application 45 of 2023 remains in force pending determination of the main application

Facts

Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) granted D & M Consults Limited a withholding tax (WHT) exemption certificate valid from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022. The respondent made several customs entries in January 2022 under this exemption. Subsequently, URA cancelled or withdrew the exemption. The respondent filed Application 54 of 2023 challenging the cancellation and obtained a temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application 45 of 2023 restraining URA from collecting WHT on the disputed entries, subject to payment of 30% of the tax in dispute. URA then applied for review of the temporary injunction order, contending that the exemption certificate had expired and that the respondent misrepresented its validity. The respondent objected, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review its own decision and that URA had not proved grounds for review.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tax Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction to review its own decisions.
  2. Whether the applicant has sufficient grounds to review the orders granted in Miscellaneous Application 45 of 2023.

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Tax Appeals Tribunal — Jurisdiction — Power to Review Own Decisions
The Tax Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction to review its own decisions under sections 22(3) and 28 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, which must be read purposively to enable the Tribunal to handle reviews after it has made a decision, in conjunction with section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Procedure Rules which the Tribunal is empowered to apply.
Review of Judgment — Grounds — Discovery of New Evidence
For a party to succeed in an application for review on the ground of discovery of new evidence, the evidence must be new and important matter which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the order was made.
Review of Judgment — Grounds — Error Apparent on Face of Record
For a party to rely on the ground of an error existing on the face of the record as a basis for review, the error must be manifestly self-evident.
Withholding Tax Exemption — Cancellation — Knowledge of Issuing Authority
Where a tax authority issues a withholding tax exemption certificate and subsequently cancels or allows it to expire, the authority cannot claim lack of knowledge of the certificate's status as new evidence for purposes of seeking review of an order, as such information was within its purview at the time the order was made.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.82
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.41 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.41 r.4
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.1
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.22
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.22(3)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.28
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act s.28(3)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2012 r.30
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2012 r.31
  • Constitution of Uganda art.152(3)

Cases cited (16)

  • AZK Services Ltd v Crane Bank Ltd (Civil Suit No. 334 of 2016)
  • Bisset v Wilkinson [1927]
  • Horsfall v Thomas [1862] 1 H & C 90
  • Long v Lloyd [1958] 1 WLR 753
  • British America Tobacco Uganda Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 62 of 2019)
  • Red Concepts Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 36 of 2023)
  • Active Automobile v Crane Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2001)
  • Scott v Brown Doering McNab & Co [1892] 2 QB 724
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Rabo Enterprises (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2004)
  • Hillside Landscape Construction Inc. v City of Lewiston, 151 Idaho 749, 753,264, P.3d 388, 392 (2011)
  • Saint Alphonsus Reg'Id Medical Center v Gooding City, 159 Idaho 84, 356 p 3d 377, 380 (2015)
  • Heritage Oil and Gas Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2011)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2012)
  • Mohammed Allibhai v W.E Bukenya Mukasa and Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • FX Mubuke v Uganda Electricity Board (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1979] HCB 12

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

Uganda Revenue Authority v D M Consults Limited (Miscellaneous Application 67 of 2023) 2023 UGTAT 68 (18 July 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.