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

Buidisa East Africa Limited v Kenya Revenue Authority (Tribunal Appeal E722 of 2025) [2026] KETAT 49 (KLR) (26 March 2026) (Judgment)

[2026] KETAT 49 (KLR) Tax Appeals Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Tax Appeals Tribunal
Case number
49
Citation
[2026] KETAT 49 (KLR)
Decided
26 March 2026
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTax AppealPostureAppeal from Objection DecisionCoramDR. RODNEY ODHIAMBO OLUOCH, CAROLINE WESONGA, DR. ERICK KOMOLO
Holding

The Appellant's appeal is dismissed, and the Respondent's Objection Decision is upheld.

Facts

The Appellant, Buidisa East Africa Limited, was assessed Kshs. 1,084,116 in VAT for the 2024 financial year. The Respondent, Kenya Revenue Authority, confirmed the assessments after the Appellant filed an objection. The Appellant alleged that the assessments were incorrect due to a suspension of VAT obligation status without prior notice.

Issues

  1. Whether the Appellant's objection to the additional assessments was valid
  2. Whether the Appellant discharged its burden of proof to show the assessments were incorrect

Reasoning

The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to provide necessary documents to support its objection, thus failing to discharge its burden of proof. The Appellant's contentions were mere averments without supporting evidence.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Objection Decision upheld
  • Appellant's costs borne by themselves
  • Respondent's costs borne by themselves

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Tax Procedures Act (Cap 469B)
  • Tax Appeals Tribunal Act (Cap 469A)
Cases cited (2)
  • Alfred Kioko Muteti v. Timothy Miheso & Another (2015) eKLR
  • Abyssinia Iron and Steel Ltd -vs- Commissioner of Customs and Border Control (TAT No. 435 of 2022)
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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case