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

This is Africa (K) Travel Agency Limited v Commissioner of Legal Services and Board Coordination (Tax Appeal 871 of 2022) [2023] KETAT 1024 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (8 September 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KETAT 1024 (KLR) Tax Appeals Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Tax Appeals Tribunal
Case number
1024
Citation
[2023] KETAT 1024 (KLR)
Decided
8 September 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTax AppealPostureAppeal from the Respondent's invalidation of the Appellant's objection noticeCoramERIC NYONGESA WAFULA, DELILAH K. NGALA, CHRISTINE A. MUGA, GEORGE KASHINDI, MOHAMMED A DIRIYE, SPENCER S. OLOLCHIKE
Holding

The Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Respondent failed to exercise its powers appropriately under Section 51(3) of the Tax Procedures Act

Facts

The Appellant, a travel agency, objected to additional income tax and VAT assessments issued by the Respondent, the Kenya Revenue Authority. The Respondent invalidated the Appellant's objection notice and confirmed the assessments.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's invalidation of the Objection Notice dated 6th July, 2022 was proper in law

Reasoning

The Respondent had the legal obligation to issue an objection decision if the Appellant had validly lodged a notice of objection. The Appellant did not provide documents in support of the objection as required by Section 51(3) of the Tax Procedures Act.

Outcome

The Appeal is dismissed, and the Respondent's invalidation notice is upheld.

Orders

  • The Appeal is dismissed.
  • The Respondent's Invalidation Notice dated 6th July, 2022 is upheld.
  • Each party bears its own costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Tax Procedures Act, CAP No. 29 of 2015
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 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case