SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Rahima Traders Limited v Commissioner of Investigations & Enforcement (Tax Appeal 235 of 2018) [2021] KETAT 135 (KLR) (16 April 2021) (Judgment)

[2021] KETAT 135 (KLR) Tax Appeals Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Tax Appeals Tribunal
Case number
135
Citation
[2021] KETAT 135 (KLR)
Decided
16 April 2021
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTax AppealPostureAppeal from a tax assessmentCoramKriegler.
Holding

The Tribunal found that the Appellant did not furnish sufficient proof of purchase and did not know or should have known that there was a fraud in the supply chain.

Facts

The Appellant, Rahima Traders Limited, was assessed a total principal VAT liability of Kshs. 148,289,809.11 for the period January 2015 to December 2017. The Respondent, Commissioner of Investigations & Enforcement, requested documents from the Appellant to substantiate the assessment.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent’s decision to disallow the input VAT by the Appellant was proper as per the provisions of the VAT Act and various authorities.

Reasoning

The Tribunal applied tests to determine if the Appellant had the right to claim input VAT. The Appellant was required to provide documents to substantiate the purchases, but the Tribunal found no evidence supporting the Appellant's claims.

Outcome

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the assessment.

Orders

  • The Tribunal dismissed the appeal with costs awarded to the Respondent.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • VAT Act
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act
  • Tax Procedures Act
Cases cited (7)
  • Metcash Trading Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another
  • Section 17(1) VAT Act
  • Section 17(3)(a) VAT Act
  • Section 30 Tax Appeals Tribunal Act
  • Section 51(3)(a) Tax Procedures Act
  • Section 56 Tax Procedures Act
  • Section 93 Tax Procedures Act
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 1.6 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case