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

Mulama v Kenya Revenue Authority (Appeal 301 of 2022) [2023] KETAT 306 (KLR) (Civ) (12 May 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KETAT 306 (KLR) Tax Appeals Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Tax Appeals Tribunal
Case number
306
Citation
[2023] KETAT 306 (KLR)
Decided
12 May 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTax AppealPostureAppeal from a decision to invalidate an objection and issue an assessmentCoramRM MUTUMA, RO OLUOCH, EN NJERU, D.K NGALA, EK CHELUGET
Holding

The Tribunal found the Respondent’s invalidation decision proper in law and the Appellant’s notice of objection failed to comply with the provisions of section 51 (3) (c) of the Tax Procedures Act, thus the Respondent was justified in invalidating the objection notice. The second issue is moot.

Facts

The Appellant was issued with a notice of intention to verify his tax affairs due to non-compliance with VAT, Income Tax, and Tax Procedures Act provisions. The Appellant objected to the assessment, but the Respondent invalidated the objection due to lack of supporting documents. The Appellant then appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent’s invalidation decision was proper in law
  2. Whether the Respondent was justified in issuing the subject assessment

Reasoning

The Tribunal determined that the Appellant did not provide the required documents to support his objection notice, as per section 51(3)(c) of the Tax Procedures Act, and thus the Respondent was justified in invalidating the notice.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Respondent’s invalidation decision was upheld

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Tax Procedures Act, 2015
Cases cited (1)
  • Kenya Revenue Authority -vs- Man Diesel & Turbo Se, Kenya (2021) eKLR
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case