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

Cable Car Corporation v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal 1433 of 2022) [2024] KETAT 43 (KLR) (26 January 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KETAT 43 (KLR) Tax Appeals Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Tax Appeals Tribunal
Case number
43
Citation
[2024] KETAT 43 (KLR)
Decided
26 January 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTax AppealPostureAppeal from a decision rejecting an objection to tax assessmentsCoramCYNTHIA B. MAYAKA, OLUOCH, E NG'ANG'A & AK KIPROTICH
Holding

The Tribunal found that the Respondent did not comply with the mandatory 60-day timeline for issuing an objection decision due to the lack of supporting documents from the Appellant.

Facts

The Appellant, Cable Car Corporation, objected to tax assessments issued by the Respondent, Commissioner of Domestic Taxes, on grounds of lack of supporting documents. The Respondent rejected the objection and demanded taxes. The Appellant then appealed the decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the Appellant's notice of objection was allowed by operations of the law.
  2. Whether the Respondent erred in its assessment of tax on the Appellant.

Reasoning

The Tribunal ruled that the Respondent should have issued an objection decision within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice of objection, but failed to do so due to the Appellant's lack of supporting documents.

Outcome

The Tribunal allowed the Appellant's appeal and found the Respondent's decision invalid.

Orders

  • The Respondent's decision rejecting the Appellant's objection is set aside.
  • The Respondent is ordered to issue an objection decision within the mandatory 60-day timeline.

Remedies

  • The Respondent is ordered to issue an objection decision within the mandatory 60-day timeline.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Tax Procedures Act
  • Companies Act
Cases cited (1)
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 6 Others
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