Wakilii

Zarin Pharmaceuticals Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 197 of 2022) 2023 UGTAT 1 (2023-02-23)

Tribunal · [2023] UGTAT 1 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 an objection decision before the Tax Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 to file an application for review of a tax objection decision. The Tribunal held that service of the objection decision on the applicant's accountant via the registered email address was valid service under the Tax Procedure Code Act, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable cause for the nearly four-year delay in filing the application. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the accountant's failure to communicate the decision to the applicant constituted sufficient cause, finding that an accountant is an employee whose actions bind the company.

Outcome

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

On 8 November 2018, Uganda Revenue Authority issued Zarin Pharmaceuticals Limited additional income tax assessments totalling UGX 128,588,111 for financial year 2017. The applicant objected on 14 November 2018. On 31 January 2019, URA issued an objection decision and served it electronically to the email address [email protected], which was the registered contact email for the applicant and belonged to the applicant's accountant. The objection decision was also uploaded to the applicant's URA Portal User account. The applicant did not file an application for review within the statutory 30-day period. On 22 December 2022, nearly four years later, the applicant filed this application for extension of time, claiming it was never served with the objection decision and only became aware of it on 10 December 2022 when the accountant informed them.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses sufficient grounds for extension of time?
  2. What remedies are available for the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Tax Law — Service of Tax Notices — Electronic Service — Validity
Under section 72(2)(d) of the Tax Procedure Code Act, a notice or document required to be served by the Commissioner is treated as sufficiently served if an electronic data message is transmitted to the person's known or registered electronic account. Service to a registered email address provided by the taxpayer for tax communications constitutes valid service.
Tax Law — Service of Tax Notices — Service on Agent or Employee
Service of a tax objection decision on a company's accountant whose email address was registered as the company's contact address for tax purposes constitutes valid service on the company. An accountant is an employee of the company, and the company cannot deny that the accountant properly received the objection decision on its behalf.
Tax Law — Extension of Time — Reasonable Cause — Delay
An applicant seeking extension of time to file an application for review of a tax objection decision must demonstrate reasonable cause for the delay. A delay of nearly four years without justification does not constitute reasonable cause, and the failure of an employee to communicate a decision to the company does not excuse the company's failure to comply with statutory time limits.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Tax Objection Decisions — Applicability of Civil Procedure Rules
A tax objection decision is not a court process or pleading and is not required to be served under the Civil Procedure Rules. There is no requirement for the Commissioner to file an affidavit of service when serving a tax objection decision. Service of tax objection decisions is governed by the Tax Procedure Code Act, not the Civil Procedure Rules.
Administrative Law — Statutory Time Limits — Substantive Law
Timelines set by statutes are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities and must be strictly complied with. Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, which enjoins courts to do substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, is not a magic wand that can be used to wave away the requirement to comply with statutory time limits.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (13)

  • Cable Corporation (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCA No. 1 of 2011)
  • Matovu Charles Kidimbo v Lukwata Yusuf & 3 others (HCMA No. 40 of 2017)
  • Mutaba Barisa Kweterana Ltd v Bazirakye Yeremiya (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 158 of 2014)
  • Erica Jos Perino v Vuzzi Azza Victor & 2 others (HCMA No. 9 of 2017)
  • Lalji v Devji [1962] EA 306
  • Abwayo Constance v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2022)
  • Erukana Omuchilo v Ayub Mudiwa [1966] EA 229
  • Banco Arab Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Sipiriya Kyaturesire v Justine Bakachulike (Court of Appeal No. 20 of 1995)
  • Tight Security Limited v Chartis Uganda Insurance Co. Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2014)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)
  • Horizon Coaches v Edward Rurangaranga and Mbarara Municipal Council (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Zarin Pharmaceuticals Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 197 of 2022) 2023 UGTAT 1 (2023-02-23)
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.