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

UDV Kenya Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal 669 of 2022) [2023] KETAT 607 (KLR) (29 June 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KETAT 607 (KLR) Tax Appeals Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Tax Appeals Tribunal
Case number
607
Citation
[2023] KETAT 607 (KLR)
Decided
29 June 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTax AppealPostureAppeal from a High Court decisionCoramMr. Justice
Holding

The Tribunal found that Legal Notice No. 217 of 2021 was not in force as of 19th November, 2021, when the High Court issued conservatory orders. Therefore, the Respondent's actions in implementing Legal Notice No. 217 were not in accordance with the law.

Facts

UDV Kenya Limited challenged the implementation and enforcement of Legal Notice No. 217 of 2021, which adjusted excise duty rates. The Respondent, the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes, issued an assessment of underpaid excise duty tax.

Issues

  1. Whether the orders issued by the High Court in the Consolidated Petition E024 of 2021 stayed the application, implementation, and enforcement of Legal Notice No. 217 of 2021.
  2. Whether the additional assessment of Excise Duty against the Appellant as per the objection decision of 28th April, 2022 was proper and lawful.

Reasoning

The Tribunal determined that the gazettement date of Legal Notice No. 217 of 2021 was not the effective date, and it could not have been in operation without approval by the National Assembly. The Tribunal found that Legal Notice No. 194 of 2020 was the applicable notice as of 19th November, 2021.

Outcome

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Respondent's assessment and decision.

Orders

  • Dismiss the Appeal.
  • Uphold the Respondent's assessment and decision dated 12th May, 2022.
  • Award the Respondent the costs of the Appeal.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Excise Duty Act
  • Kenya Revenue Authority 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 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case