https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/ketat/2026/135

Agriflora Kenya Ltd v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Appeal E1134 of 2025) [2026] KETAT 135 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KETAT 135 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Tax Appeal Tribunal Appeal E1134 of 2025 RM Mutuma, Chair, JM Malla, T Vikiru & G Ogaga, Members July 3, 2026 Between Agriflora Kenya Limited Appellant and Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Respondent Judgment Background 1.The Appellant is a limited liability company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, Laws of Kenya, and is engaged in large-scale horticultural production, processing, and export, as well as domestic distribution of horticultural produce within Kenya. 2.The Respondent is a principal officer appointed under Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act, Cap 469 Laws of Kenya (KRA Act). Under Section 5 (1) of the Act, KRA is an agency of the Government for the collection and receipt of all revenue. For the performance of its function under Subsection (1), the Authority is mandated under Section 5(2) of the Act to administer and enforce all provisions of the written laws as set out in Parts I and II of the First Schedule to the KRA Act to assess, collect, and account for all revenues under those laws. 3.The Appellant lodged an Income tax refund application on 4th February 2025 in respect of overpaid tax in its 2014 accounting period through the 2017 tax return, for the period 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017. 4.The Respondent rejected the refund application as time-barred, by the decision communicated on 11th August 2025. 5.The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the Respondent’s refund rejection of 11th August 2025, filed its Notice of Appeal against it dated 19th September 2025 on the same date. The Appeal 6.The Appeal is premised on the Memorandum of Appeal dated 10th September 2025 and filed on 9th October 2025 which raised the following grounds: -a.That the Respondent erred in law and fact by disallowing income tax credits that had been acknowledged and validated by the Respondent through the letter dated 6th October 2022.b.That the Respondent erred in law and fact by breaching the Appellant’s legitimate expectation created that the credits had been validated and would be migrated to iTax for utilization.c.That the Respondent erred in law and fact by rejecting the Appellant’s refund claim on grounds that it was time-barred under Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015, without considering that the matter had been under active review and engagement with the Respondent since 2019, thus falling within the statutory timelines.d.That the Respondent erred in law and fact by giving a refund decision dated 11th August 2025 that contravenes the provisions of Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act.e.That the Respondent erred in law and fact by failing to acknowledge that the delay in processing and validating the credits was caused by the Respondent’s own internal processes, including referral to the Section 42 Project Review Team, forwarding of documents to the Corporate Data Office, and subsequent disbandment of the review team – circumstances beyond the Appellant’s control.f.That the Respondent acted unfairly and unreasonably by rejecting the refund application contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution (right to fair administrative action) and the principles of fairness, equity, and good administration. Appellant’s Case 7.The Appellant’s case is premised on the following documents filed before the Tribunal:a.Its Statement of Facts dated 10th September 2025 and filed on 9th October 2025, and the documents attached thereto; andb.The Appellant’s Written Submissions dated 8th April 2026 and filed on 9th April 2026. 8.The Appellant stated that in the year of income 2014, it made an overpayment of Corporation tax amounting to Kshs. 10,239,625. That this overpayment was lawfully carried forward under the provisions of Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act Cap. 496B, 2015 (“TPA”), which allows for the application of excess credits against future liabilities, and was duly utilized in subsequent tax returns filed under the legacy system (prior to the rollout of the iTax platform). 9.That in its final corporation tax return under the legacy system for the year ended 31st March 2015, the Appellant applied Kshs. 316,028 from the said overpaid taxes to fully offset its tax liability for that year, and accordingly, the cumulative overpayment carried forward after the 2015 return was reduced to Kshs. 9,923,597. 10.That upon migration to the iTax system in 2016, the Appellant encountered a system limitation: the corporate tax return template (IT2C) did not contain a dedicated section to capture brought-forward tax credits from legacy returns. That in the absence of official guidance from the Respondent and with no functional field available, the Appellant was constrained to declare the tax credits under Field 13.4 of the IT2C (Credit under Section 42 of the Income Tax Act) for the year of income 2016. The Appellant claimed that this was a system workaround necessitated by the Respondent’s failure to provide a designated mechanism for recognition of the brought-forward credits. 11.The Appellant continued to utilize the 2014 overpaid taxes by claiming them under Field 13.4 (Credit under Section 42) of the corporate income tax returns (IT2Cs) through to the year of income 2019, at which point it filed a refund application on the basis of those credits. That as of 2019, the balance of overpaid corporate taxes was Kshs. 10,032,416, out of which Kshs. 9,836,766 related to the legacy overpayment. 12.That of the overpaid taxes reflected in the year 2019, an amount of Kshs. 719,885 was automatically transferred by the iTax system to the advance payments account. That the remaining balance of Kshs. 9,312,513 was carried in the Appellant’s iTax Income Tax–Company ledgers for that year, and it is this amount that formed the basis of the Appellant’s refund application. 13.The Appellant averred that on 26th September 2019, it lodged an income tax refund for the overpaid taxes of Kshs. 9,312,513 for the year 2019, within statutory timelines, and submitted all the relevant supporting documents to the Respondent refunds department for processing. That the claim was wholly premised on credits carried in Field 13.4 of the return 2019. 14.That on 16th December 2019, the Appellant received a letter from the Respondent dated 20th November 2019 notifying it of an ongoing exercise for migration of legacy tax balances onto the iTax system, and in the said letter, the Respondent alleged that the Appellant had an outstanding legacy balance of Kshs. 9,247,844 under the Income Tax – Company obligation for periods up to and including the year 2014, which it intended to migrate to iTax. 15.That on 20th December 2019 via email, the Appellant, wrote to the Respondent requesting for an extension of time to respond to the Respondent’s letter dated 20th November 2019. That this was followed up by a letter dated 13th January 2020, reiterating the request for an extension of time to provide a detailed response regarding the legacy balances intended for migration onto the iTax system, 16.That on 21st January 2020, before the Appellant could respond to the Respondent’s letter of 20th November 2019, it received another letter from the Respondent claiming that it had a cumulative liability of Kshs. 58,387,992 for the years 2007 to 2013, in respect of VAT and Income Tax – Company obligations. That of this amount, Kshs. 49,150,491 was purportedly from the legacy system. That the Respondent requested the Appellant to provide supporting documents to facilitate reconciliation if it considered the legacy liabilities to be erroneous. 17.The Appellant responded to the Respondent’s letter of 21st January 2020 via email on 28th January 2020, disputing all the listed liabilities from the legacy system. That in its response, the Appellant provided a detailed explanation and the correct position for each of the queried years, accompanied by all the relevant supporting documents. 18.That separately, on 29th January 2021, the Appellant received an additional assessment of Kshs. 9,836,766 for the year of income 2019, referenced as KRA202101350562. That this assessment disallowed the very credits claimed under Field 13.4 of the 2019 return, which were also the basis of the Appellant’s refund application. That consequently, the assessment disallowed the basis of the refund for the year 2019. 19.That on 31st August 2021, two further additional assessments of Kshs. 9,923,597 (2016) and Kshs. 10,040,463 (2018) were raised (KRA202118227865 and KRA202118227980, respectively). That these assessments were similarly based on the rejection of legacy credits claimed under Field 13.4 of the IT2Cs. 20.That the Appellant lodged objections against these assessments within statutory timelines in accordance with Section 51 of the TPA. 21.That on 8th November 2021, the Respondent, through the Commissioner, Legal Services & Board Coordination, issued an Objection decision confirming the additional assessments on the ground that Field 13.4 was intended for foreign tax credits. That in the same decision, the Respondent acknowledged that the disallowed credits nonetheless required reconciliation and directed the Appellant to engage with the Section 42 Project Review Team, which had been tasked with validating legacy balances. 22.That following this direction, the Appellant engaged with the Section 42 Project Review Team and submitted supporting evidence for consideration. That the Appellant continued to make follow-ups with the Review Team over several months. 23.That on 27th June 2022, the Appellant’s corporate income tax refund application for year 2019 was formally rejected, the Respondent citing the subsisting additional assessment cases for the years 2016, 2018, and 2019 as the reason for rejection. 24.That on 15th September 2022, after several follow-ups with the Section 42 Project Review Team that had not yielded progress, the Appellant personally visited the Respondent’s offices and engaged with the Section 42 Project Review Team, carrying all the requisite documents. That during this meeting, the documents were reviewed in detail. That it was at this stage that the Respondent, through the Section 42 Team, informed the Appellant that additional withholding tax certificates totaling Kshs. 93,656 and Kshs. 98,736 for the years 2016 and 2018 respectively would be required in order to progress the validation. 25.That the Respondent further communicated that the corporate income tax refund claim for the year 2019 could not be honoured at that stage hence the rejection of 27th June 2022, and advised the Appellant to re-apply for a refund in respect of the year 2017 (the only year without an additional assessment) once the credits had been validated. 26.That on 22nd September 2022, the Appellant shared the requested withholding tax certificates with the Section 42 Project Review Team. 27.That after sharing the requested withholding tax certificates, the Appellant visited the Section 42 Project Review Team to ascertain progress. That on that visit, the Appellant was informed that the documents it had provided for validation of the Field 13.4 credits had been forwarded to the Corporate Data Office (CDO) for review and validation and that the Appellant should follow up with the CDO. 28.That after numerous follow-ups with the CDO, the Appellant was informed of the ongoing data clean-up exercise being carried out by the CDO (the same exercise for which the Respondent had informed the Appellant of on 16th December 2019 and whose response and supporting documents were provided on 23rd January 2020). That the Appellant was further informed that the credits claimed under the Field 13.4 section of IT2C would be validated and migrated once the exercise was concluded. 29.That the CDO responded on 6th October 2022, confirming in writing that the Appellant had overpaid corporate tax credits of Kshs. 12,460,384 and VAT credits of Kshs. 21,497,688 that would be migrated onto iTax. 30.That after reviewing the credits validated for migration, the Appellant wrote to CDO on 17th October 2022 agreeing with the validated credits and requesting that the CDO proceed to migrate them. The Appellant also expressed its willingness to provide any additional information required for closure of the matter. 31.The Appellant stated that on 18th October 2022, the CDO wrote to the Appellant informing it that the process of migration of legacy balances had already commenced and that the CDO would keep the Appellant updated on progress. 32.That the Appellant continued to follow up with the CDO for migration of the validated legacy balances until late 2023 when, during one of its follow-ups, it was informed that the CDO had been disbanded and that the migration mandate had been transferred to the newly created Taxpayers Account Unit (TAU) at KRA headquarters. 33.That on 24th June 2024, the Respondent posted legacy balances on iTax under the Income Tax – Company Legacy Ledgers. That the amount posted was a credit of Kshs. 39,902,632, which was inconsistent with the amount previously validated by the CDO (Kshs. 12,460,384). 34.That upon visiting the Taxpayers Account Unit (TAU), the Appellant was informed that these balances, being recorded under the legacy ledgers rather than the main ledgers, were not yet available for use and that adjustments would be made based on the information provided. That the Appellant left a copy of its correspondence with the CDO to assist in the adjustment process. 35.That on 23rd August 2024, acting on advice from the Section 42 Project Review Team, the Appellant made a refund application for the overpaid corporate taxes (originally relating to the 2014 overpayment) through the 2017 return. The Respondent rejected that application on the ground that it was time-barred via a rejection notice dated 31st January 2025. 36.That on 4th February 2025, the Appellant made another refund application for the same year (2017). That the Respondent again rejected the application on technical grounds, communicating the decision by an e-mail dated 11th August 2025. 37.The Appellant addressed its grounds of Appeal as follows: (i) The Respondent Erred In Law And Fact By Disallowing Income Tax Credits That Had Been Acknowledged And Validated By The Respondent Through The Letter Dated 6Th October 2022. 38.The Appellant averred that the Respondent informed it that the income tax credits had been validated and the same would be migrated to itax. That on 6th October 2022, the Respondent informed the Appellant that it had overpaid corporate tax credits of Kshs. 12,460,384 and VAT credits of Kshs. 21,497,688 that would be migrated onto iTax. 39.That additionally, on 18th October 2022, the Respondent confirmed to the Appellant that the process of migration of legacy balances had already commenced and that Commissioner would keep the Appellant updated on progress. 40.That the Appellant continued to follow up with the Respondent for migration of the validated legacy balances including engaging with the Section 42 Project Review Team until 11th August 2025 when the refund application for the overpaid corporate taxes was rejected on grounds that application was time-barred. 41.The Appellant contended that the Respondent’s decision declining to process the refunds contradicts its previous position. That the refunds application was lodged on time and validated by the Respondent as explained hereinabove. (ii) The Respondent Erred In Law And Fact By Breaching The Appellant’s Legitimate Expectation Created That The Credits Had Been Validated And Would Be Migrated To Itax For Utilization. 42.The Appellant asserted that it had a legitimate expectation, arising from the Respondent’s own communications, that its refund would be processed once the legacy credits were migrated to itax. 43.That on 6th October 2022, the Respondent, through the Corporate Data Office, formally confirmed that the Appellant had corporate tax credits of Kshs. 12,460,384 and VAT credits of Kshs. 21,497,688 that would be migrated into iTax. That acting on this assurance, the Appellant re-applied for refunds as advised, only for the Respondent to later reject those claims as time barred. 44.That by confirming the credits and directing the Appellant to reapply, the Respondent created a clear and reasonable expectation. That rejecting the applications later, on technical grounds unlawfully frustrated that expectation. (iii) The Appellant’s Refund Claim Was Made Within The Statutory Timelines Contrary To The Assertions By The Respondent. 45.The Appellant averred that it lodged its refund application on 26th September 2019 for Kshs. 9,312,513, within the statutory timelines prescribed under Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act Cap. 496B, 2015 (TPA). 46.The Appellant submitted that the Respondent failed to process this claim within the period required by Section 47(3) TPA, instead issuing additional assessments in 2020 and 2021 which disallowed the credits forming the basis of the refund. 47.That the Respondent eventually rejected the refund application years later, stating that it is time-barred. That the resulting time-bar was therefore wholly created by the Respondent’s own delay and contradictory handling of the matter, not by any fault of the Appellant. 48.The Appellant maintained that the refund application was validly lodged and ought to have been processed within the statutory timelines, rather than frustrated by the Respondent’s delays. (iv) The Respondent’s Refund Decision Of 11Th August 2025 Contravenes The Provisions of Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act Cap. 496B. 49.The Appellant also stated that by not issuing the Refund decision on time, the Respondent contravened the provisions of Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act Cap. 496B, 2015 which provides for refund applications and decisions. 50.The Appellant stated that Section 47(1) of the Tax Procedures Act Cap. 496B, 2015 states that the Appellant can apply for a tax refund in the case of overpaid income tax within 5 years from the date the taxes were overpaid. 51.That Section 47 (1) of the Tax Procedures Act Cap. 496B reads: -“Where a taxpayer has overpaid a tax under any tax law, the Appellant may apply to the Commissioner in the prescribed form—(a)to offset the overpaid tax against the Appellant’s outstanding tax debts and future tax liabilities including instalment taxes and input value added tax; or(b)for a refund of the overpaid tax—(i)in the case of income tax, within five years from the date on which the tax was overpaid; or(ii)in the case of any other tax, within twelve months from the date on which the tax was overpaid.” 52.That in this case, the Appellant made its application for the refunds for overpaid taxes for the year 2015 in 2019. That by operation of Section 47(1) of the Tax Procedures Act Cap. 496B, the Appellant’s Application was within time. 53.The Appellant also stated that Section 47(2) of the Tax Procedures Act Cap. 496B gives the Respondent powers to ascertain and determine if the application for the refund is justifiable. That further, it mandates the Respondent to determine the application for refund within 90 days. 54.That Section 47(2) of the Tax Procedures Act Cap. 496B states: -“The Commissioner shall ascertain and determine an application under subsection (1) within ninety days and where the Commissioner ascertains that there was an overpayment of tax—” 55.The Appellant further stated that by operation of Section 47(3) of the Tax Procedures Act Cap. 496B, if the Respondent fails to a refund decision within the stipulated timelines, the Application is deemed to have been allowed. 56.That Section 47(3) of the Tax Procedures Act Cap. 496B states: -“Where the Commissioner fails to ascertain and determine an application under subsection (1) within ninety days, the same shall be deemed ascertained and approved.” 57.The averred that it made an application for the refund in dispute on the 26th September 2019, and this meant that by the operation of the law, the Respondent was supposed to issue a refund decision either: in the case of an ordinary application that does not require an audit on 25th December 2019 as per the provisions of Section 47(3) of the Tax Procedures Act Cap. 496B. 58.The Appellant averred that the Respondent failed to adhere to the prescribed timelines and as such, the refund application is deemed as allowed as per the provisions of Section 47(3) of the Tax Procedures Act Cap. 496B. 59.That in light of the above provision, the Respondent having not given a Refund decision within the stipulated time meant that the Appellant’s refund application was allowed. (v) The Respondent Acted Unfairly And Unreasonably By Rejecting The Refund Application Contrary To Article 47 Of The Constitution (right To Fair Administrative Action) And The Principles Of Fairness, Equity, And Good Administration. 60.The Appellant averred that it lawfully pursued a refund of overpaid Corporation tax arising from the year of income 2014. That the first application, lodged on 26th September 2019 for Kshs. 9,312,513, was made within the statutory timelines prescribed under Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act, Cap. 496B. That instead of processing this application within the period required by Section 47(3) of the TPA, the Respondent raised additional assessments in 2020 and 2021 that disallowed the credits forming the basis of the refund. 61.That subsequently, the Respondent (through the Section 42 Project Review Team) advised that because the additional assessments would not be disturbed, the refund could not proceed under 2019, and that once the underlying credits were validated, the Appellant should apply for refund under the 2017 return (the only year without an additional assessment). 62.That acting on this official guidance, the Appellant duly lodged refund applications in 2024 and 2025. That both were rejected on technical grounds of time-bar, despite being based on the very same credits whose validation the Respondent itself had initiated. 63.That this conduct amounts to a clear breach of Article 47(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which provides that: -“Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.” 64.That similarly, Section 4(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 provides that: -“Every person has the right to administrative action which is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.” 65.That by failing to process the 2019 refund application in good time, then later advising a 2017 re-application only to reject it on technical grounds, the Respondent’s actions fell short of these constitutional and statutory obligations. That the Appellant’s lawful claims were frustrated not by its own conduct, but by the Respondent’s delays, contradictions, and administrative unfairness. 66.That in light of the foregoing, the Appellant respectfully submitted that the Respondent’s handling of the refund applications resulted in undue delay, administrative unfairness, and a breach of legitimate expectation. That consequently, the Appellant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this Appeal, including the processing and refund of the overpaid taxes. Appellant’s Submissions 67.The Appellant submitted on the issues it considered for determination as follows: i. Whether the Respondent Breached The Appellant’s Right To Legitimate Expectation 68.The Appellant averred that in the year of income 2014, it had an overpayment of taxes amounting to Kshs. 10,239,625 for Corporate Income Tax which were lawfully carried forward through the legacy system. 69.That the Respondent introduced the iTax system in 2016 and the Appellant encountered a system limitation as the corporate return template (IT2C) did not contain a dedicated section to capture carry forward tax credits from legacy returns. The Appellant declared the tax credits under Field 13.4 of the IT2C and continued to utilize the 2014 overpaid taxes by claiming them under Field 13.4 through the years until 2019 when it lodged a refund application. 70.That after numerous engagements and correspondences, the Respondent validated overpaid taxes amounting to Kshs. 12,460,384.00 and Kshs. 21,497,688.00 being taxes for Corporate tax and VAT tax credits respectively that would be migrated to iTax. 71.The Appellant submitted that in Kenya Revenue Authority v Export Trading Company Ltd [2022] KESC 31 (KLR), the Supreme Court in defining legitimate expectation referred to 4th Edition, Vol 1 (1) At page 151, paragraph 81 of the Halsbury’s Laws of England, which describes as follows: -“A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by authority, including an implied representation, or from consistent past practice”. 72.That further according to De Smith Woolf & Jowell, “Judicial Review of Administrative Action” 6th Edn Sweet & Maxwell page 609: “A legitimate expectation arises where a person responsible for taking a decision has induced in someone a reasonable expectation that he will receive or retain a benefit of advantage.” 73.That the Supreme Court went further to discuss that for an expectation to be legitimate therefore, it must be founded upon a promise or practice by a public authority that is expected to fulfill the expectation. That the emerging principles on legitimate expectation are that:a.there must be an express, clear and unambiguous promise given by a public authority;b.the expectation itself must be reasonable;c.the representation must be one which it was competent and lawful for the decision-maker to make; andd.there cannot be a legitimate expectation against clear provisions of the law or the Constitution.” 74.It was the Appellant’s submission that the Respondent cannot lawfully backtrack on its own assurance that the refunds were due and payable, particularly after a review of the refund claim had been duly undertaken. That no reasons have been advanced for the subsequent contrary decision. That such conduct amounts to a breach of the Appellant’s legitimate expectation and is contrary to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and good administration. ii. Whether the Appellant is Entitled To Refund On Overpaid Taxes 75.The Appellant averred that with the Respondent’s assurance in the letter dated 17th October 2022, it proceeded to track progress on validated credit balances. That on 23rd August 2024, the Appellant made a refund application that was rejected through a notice dated 31st January 2025. 76.That on 4th February 2025, the Appellant lodged another refund application that was rejected on 11th August 2025. 77.It was the Appellant’s submission that timelines in tax matters are very key. That it is observed from the conduct of the Respondent that it has failed in all instances to keep to the timelines that are set out in the Tax Procedures Act as regards to the application for refunds and even its assessments. 78.The Appellant submitted that Section 47(2) of the Tax Procedures Act provides that the Commissioner has 90 days to determine and approve an application for refund. 79.The Appellant argued that this case indicates a gross disregard of this provision by the Respondent. That to point out, the first application for refund which was made on 26th September 2019 was replied to by the Commissioner more than 2 years down the line on 27th June 2022. That this also is the case in the subsequent applications for refunds where the refunds decisions were given out of time. 80.The Appellant submitted that failure to make such a determination within the prescribed time by the Commissioner would mean that the same has been allowed and approved as per the provisions of Section 47(3) of the Tax Procedures Act. 81.It is the Appellant’s position that the rules for procedure are put in place to ensure proper adjudication of disputes while in this matter, Respondent failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 47(2) of the TPA. 82.That further, the Tax Appeals Tribunal while discussing the issue of Section 47 (3) in the Tax Appeals case of Mayfair Insurance Company Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E1328 of 2024) [2025] KETAT 270 (KLR), came to the conclusion that the Respondent’s failure to give a tax decision within 90 days deemed the application approved. 83.That further, the Appellant submitted that the Court in the case of Commissioner of Domestic taxes v. Sony Holdings Limited (2021) Eklr stated the following regarding refund applications: -“Despite communicating to the Respondent the Refund audit findings by the letter dated 25th January 2017, the Commissioner failed to make decision within 90 days as provided by sections 47(3) of the TPA. This communication was, in my view, ambivalent and did not amount to a decision. I therefore hold that since the refund claim was neither denied nor rejected, the Respondent was entitled to claim the refund in its returns in subsequent years until the matter was resolved. I do not find anything in the TPA, nor has the Commissioner pointed to any provision of the law, that states that a taxpayer can only make a refund claim once whereupon the claim is extinguished notwithstanding that it has not been settled. Additionally, I reject the Commissioner’s contention that the Respondent has committed an offence by making a claim that it genuinely believes it is entitled to when the Commissioner has not dealt with its application for the refund.” 84.It was the Appellant’s submission that by the mere action of the Respondent not issuing a refund decision, the same was deemed as approved and that the Appellant had the right to apply for the same until the validated credit amounts were utilised. 85.On the issue of the objection and objection decision, the Appellant submitted that it was issued with notices of additional assessments dated 29th January 2021 and 31st August 2021 which were objected to by the Appellant on 26th February and 20th September 2021 respectively. 86.It was the Appellant’s position that it provided all the relevant documents to object to the tax assessments. That the Respondent has the power to request for any additional documents that it may require to ascertain the Appellant’s tax position. 87.It was also the Appellant’s position that it had adequately satisfied its burden of proof by providing the relevant documents to the Respondent for evaluation as per the provisions of Section 56 of the TPA. 88.The Appellant further submitted that that the Respondent’s Objection decision did not meet the parameters of a valid objection decision as set out in the Tax Procedures Act under Section 51(10) which states that a valid Objection decision should contain, a statement of findings and reasons for the decision as it did not contain a statement of findings nor a reason for the decisions 89.The Appellant also submitted that the Respondent in its response has rightfully pointed out that Section 42 of the Income Tax Act does not provide for tax refunds instead it stated that the Appellant ought to have made an application to the Respondent via a letter. 90.The Appellant averred that the Respondent (through the Section 42 Project Review Team) advised that because the additional assessments would not be disturbed, the refund could not proceed under 2019, and that once the underlying credits were validated, the Appellant should apply for refund under the 2017 return (the only year without an additional assessment). 91.The Appellant submitted that acting on this official guidance, it duly lodged refund applications in 2024 and 2025. That both were rejected on technical grounds of time-bar, despite being based on the very same credits whose validation the Respondent itself had approved. 92.It was the Appellant’s position that it has a right to an administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful as envisaged under Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Tax Procedures Act. Appellant’s Prayers 93.The Appellant prayed for the Tribunal to:a.Allow the Appeal and find that the Respondent’s refusal to process the Appellant’s refund applications for overpaid taxes was unlawful, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair.b.Order Refund of Taxes: Direct the Respondent to process and refund in full the overpaid corporate tax credits.c.Award Costs of this appeal to the Appellant.d.Grant Any Other Relief that the Tribunal may deem just and equitable in the circumstances. Respondent’s Case 94.The Respondent’s case is premised on the following documents filed before the Tribunal:a.The Respondent’s Statement of Facts dated 28th November 2025 and filed on the same date; andb.Its Written Submissions dated 28th April 2026 and filed on 29th April 2026. 95.The Respondent raised additional assessments as a result of disallowed Section 42 credits of Kshs. 9,923,597.00 for the year 2016 and Kshs. 10,040,463.00 for the year 2018. That the Appellant objected to the said assessment via a notice of objection on 30th September 2021. 96.The Respondent issued a response under Section 51(4) of the Tax Procedures Act dated 8th November 2021 on an invalidly lodged objection. 97.The Respondent stated that the Appellant filed fresh applications and the Respondent issued rejection notice on 31st January 2025. 98.That dissatisfied with the Objection decision, the Appellant filed this Appeal. 99.The Respondent cited Section 42 of the Income Tax Act. The Respondent also submitted that Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act covers offset or refund of overpaid tax. 100.The Respondent averred that it notified the Appellant that the tax credits for taxes paid locally should not be claimed under Section 42 of ITA but rather under Section 47 of the TPA and that as the case maybe the Appellant ought to have written to the Respondent to claim over payments. 101.The Respondent stated that the Appellant has from paragraphs 44-49 of its statement of facts relied on provisions of Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act, however and averred that it made applications for refund in on 26th September 2019. The Respondent asserted that the application was invalidated as per the latter communication by the Respondent 102.That in a response under Section 51(4) of the Tax Procedures Act dated 8th November 2021 on an invalidly lodged objection is when the Appellant was directed to proceed under Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act. 103.The Respondent stated that no latter application in compliance with the above directions has been presented as evidence to show the Appellant’s follow up to procedure as guided. 104.That furthermore, in the Appellant’s annexed Refund Rejection order dated 31st January 2025 for the period 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017, is in contradiction with the Appellant’s annexed refund application is dated 4th February 2025. 105.The Respondent placed the onus on the Appellant to establish the reasons for filing a fresh application on a rejected claim which was termed as time barred. 106.The Respondent submitted that it is empowered by Section 31(1)(b) and Section 29 of the Tax Procedures Act to amend an assessment based on the information available to it and to the best of its judgement. 107.That the Respondent is allowed by Section 24(2) of the Tax Procedures Act to assess a taxpayer’s liability using any information available to him. That to this extent, the Respondent confirms to have operated within the confines of the law by using the data available following a return review. 108.The Respondent submitted that Section 51(3) of the Tax Procedures Act states: -“(3).A notice of objection shall be treated as validly lodged by a taxpayer under subsection (2) if—a)the notice of objection states precisely the grounds of objection, the amendments required to be made to correct the decision, and the reasons for the amendments;b)about an objection to an assessment, the taxpayer has paid the entire amount of tax due under the assessment that is not in dispute or has applied for an extension of time to pay the tax not in dispute under section 33(1); andc)all the relevant documents relating to the objection have been submitted.” 109.The Respondent averred that the Appellant’s objection was rejected pursuant to Section 51(3) of the Tax Procedures Act. That the Appellant failed to support its objection by providing all the relevant documents relating to the objection. 110.That the Appellant therefore, failed to comply with Section 51(3) of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015; that this left the Respondent with no choice than to reject the Appellant’s objection application. 111.That there is no evidence averred that the Respondent did not review documents provided nor has the Appellant submitted evidence to show that it presented evidence to the Respondent. 112.The Respondent submitted that it is guided by Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act which provides that “in any proceedings under this Part, the burden shall be on the taxpayer to prove that a tax decision is incorrect.” 113.The Respondent maintained that the tax assessment issued was properly founded in fact and law, and that the objection decision was fair, reasonable, and made in accordance with statutory provisions. Respondent’s Submissions 114.The Respondent made the following submissions under the headings below: Whether the Appellant’s Legitimate Expectation Was Violated By The Respondent. 115.The Respondent submitted that legitimate expectation is a promise made to a party by a public body that it will act or not act in a certain manner and for the promise to hold, the same must be made within the confines of law since a public body cannot make a promise which goes against the express letter of the law. 116.That in this case, however, it was contended that there was no representation made to the Appellant to the effect that refunds will be allowed either under section 42 of the Income Tax Act(ITA) or under Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act(TPA). 117.That in the case of Republic v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Exparte Sony Holdings Limited [2019] eKLR it was cited that: -“207.A procedural legitimate expectation rests on the presumption that a public authority will follow a certain procedure in advance of a decision being taken. In adjudicating legitimate expectation claims, the court follows a two-step approach. First, it asks whether the administrator’s actions created a reasonable expectation in the mind of the aggrieved party. Second, if the answer to this question is in affirmative, the second question is whether that expectation is legitimate. If the answer to the second question is equally affirmative, then the court will hold the administrator to the representation, and enforce the legitimate expectation. 208. The first step in the analysis has both an objective and a subjective dimension. First, it is asked whether a reasonable expectation of a certain outcome was created. The representation itself must be precise and specific and importantly, lawful. This requirement also implies that individuals are required to know what the law is and consequently when a representation is lawful or not and hence can be relied upon or not.[140] Once a reasonable expectation exists, the administrator is required to act in accordance with that expectation, except if there are public interest considerations, which outweighs the individual’s expectation.” 118.The Respondent argued that legitimate expectation cannot be contrary to statutory provisions and that refund rejection made by the Respondent was anchored in law and cannot be said to be unilateral, unreasonable or unfair. Whether the Refund Rejection was Justified 119.The Respondent submitted that Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act covers offset or refund of the overpaid tax. 120.The Respondent averred that it notified the Appellant that the tax credits for taxes paid locally should not be claimed under Section 42 of ITA but rather under Section 47 of the TPA and that as the case maybe the Appellant ought to have written to the Respondent to claim over payments. 121.That the Appellant has from paragraph 44-49 of its statement of facts relied on provisions of Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act, however, has averred that it made applications for refund on 26th September 2019. That the application was invalidated as per the latter communication by the Respondent 122.That in a response under Section 51(4) of the Tax Procedures Act dated 8th November 2021 on an invalidly lodged objection is when the Appellant was directed to proceed under Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act. 123.The Respondent maintained that no latter application, in compliance with the above directions has been presented as evidence, to show the Appellant’s follow up to procedure as guided. 124.That furthermore, in the Appellant’s annexed Refund Rejection order dated 31st January 2025 for the period 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017, in contradiction, the Appellant’s annexed refund application is dated 4th February 2025. 125.The Respondent placed the onus on the Appellant to establish the reasons for filing a fresh application on a rejected claim which was termed as time barred. 126.It was the Respondent’s submission that the doctrine of exhaustion requires that the Appellant ought to have exhausted the internal dispute resolution mechanisms before moving to the Tribunal as it was cited in Speaker of National Assembly vs. Karume 1992 eKLR which stated: -“Where there is a clear procedure for redress of any particularly grievances prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed. Accordingly, the special procedure provided by any law must be strictly adhered to since there are good reasons for such special procedures.” 127.The Respondent affirmed that it is not bound by the tax returns of the Appellant. That the Respondent may asses a taxpayer’s tax liability using any information available to the Respondent according to Section 24(2), Tax Procedures Act. 128.The Respondent submitted that the refund application of the Appellant was rejected on the basis that the Appellant did not provide proper documents in support. 129.That in Mulherin vs Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 115 the Federal Court of Australia held that in tax disputes, the taxpayer must satisfy the burden of proof to successfully challenge income tax assessments. That the onus is on the taxpayer in proving that assessment was excessive by adducing positive evidence which demonstrates the taxable income on which tax ought to have been levied. 130.That the Tribunal in the case of Intime Stone Age Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Appeal 714 of 2022) [2024] KETAT 44 (KLR) (26 January 2024) (Judgment) emphasised the need of the taxpayer to provide relevant and specific documents to support its grounds of objection. 131.The Respondent averred that it requested the Appellant to provide a specific set of documents for review and the Appellant failed to avail documents to sufficiently explain the variances noted in the assessment. 132.The Respondent asserted that it was right in its conclusion that the objection of the Appellant fell short. That the Court in Osho Drapers Limited versus Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2022] eKLR, held that Section 59 of the Tax Procedures Act empowers the Commissioner to request for additional information to satisfy himself on the taxable income declared. 133.The Respondent submitted that the Appellant has a duty to keep records for a period of five years in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of the Tax Procedures Act. That Sections 23 and 59 of the Tax Procedures Act provide that the Appellant has an obligation to keep records and produce them when called upon to do so by the Commissioner. 134.The Respondent claimed that it went out of its way to make follow up communications with the Appellant to remind them to avail documentation in support of the objection. 135.The Respondent referred to Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act which places the burden on the taxpayer to prove that a tax decision is incorrect. 136.That Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act provides that when appealing to the Tribunal, the Appellant has the burden of proving that where an appeal relates to an assessment, that the assessment is excessive or in any other case, the tax decision should not have been made or should have been made differently. 137.The Respondent submitted that the Appellant has not discharged its burden of proof under Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act and Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. That owing to the failure of the Appellant to avail proper documentation, it was right to fully reject the objection. 138.That the Appellant thus cannot purport to allege that the Respondent disregarded its documents when considering the objection when they never brought the documents. Respondent’s Prayers 139.The Respondent prayed that the Tribunal:a.Dismisses the appeal in its entirety;b.Upholds the tax assessment as confirmed by the objection decision; andc.Orders the Appellant to pay the costs of the appeal. Issue for Determination 140.The Tribunal has considered the pleadings and the submissions made by the Parties, and considers the issue for determination as follows:Whether the Respondent was justified in rejecting the Income tax refund application for the period 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017 in its refund decision communicated on 11th August 2025. Analysis and Findings 141.Having identified the issue for determination, the Tribunal proceeds to analyse the same as hereunder. 142.At the outset, the Tribunal confines itself to the decision properly before it. The Notice of Appeal dated 19th September 2025, which commenced this Appeal, was lodged against the Respondent’s refund decision communicated on 11th August 2025, and it is that decision alone that defines the scope of this Appeal. 143.The Parties’ pleadings and submissions also traverse, at considerable length, an earlier and distinct dispute: the additional assessments raised for the years of income 2016, 2018 and 2019, the validity of the Appellant’s objection to them, the Respondent’s Objection decision of 8th November 2021, and the Parties’ respective discharge of the burden of proof under Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act and Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act in relation to those assessments. That Objection decision is a separate tax decision from the one under appeal, and no appeal against it is before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accordingly makes no finding on its validity. 144.The Tribunal is guided by the case of W.E.C. Lines Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [TAT Case No.247 of 2020] where it was held at paragraph 70 while reiterating the holding in Krystalline Salt Ltd vs KRA [2019] eKLR that: -“Where there is a clear procedure for redress of any particular grievance prescribed by the constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed. Accordingly, the special procedure provided by any law must be strictly adhered to since there are good reasons for such special procedures. The relevant procedure here is the process of opposing an assessment by the Commissioner.” 145.Where the law prescribes a specific procedure for the redress of a grievance, that procedure must be strictly followed, and a grievance against one decision cannot be revived collaterally through an appeal against another. 146.For the same reason, the Tribunal does not make a determination on ground (f) of the Memorandum of Appeal, that the Respondent’s conduct violated Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 4(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015. That ground calls for a broad inquiry into the Respondent’s conduct across the Parties’ entire multi-year engagement, and for remedies beyond the confirmation or setting aside of a tax decision; it is more properly the subject of a claim under the Fair Administrative Action Act or a constitutional petition before the High Court. This is not to say fairness is irrelevant to the Tribunal’s task: fairness bears directly on whether the refund decision of 11th August 2025 was correctly made, and the Tribunal returns to it, within that frame, in the analysis below. 147.The overpayment the Appellant seeks to recover originated, as the Tribunal finds below, in its 2014 year of income. The Appellant averred that the IT2C return template introduced with the migration to iTax in 2016 contained no field for legacy brought-forward tax credits, the Appellant carried the balance forward by declaring it under Field 13.4 of its returns, and made three successive attempts to recover it by way of a formal refund application. 148.The first refund application, dated 26th September 2019, was made on the strength of the 2014 credit carried in the Appellant’s 2019 return, in the sum of Kshs. 9,312,513, and was rejected by the Respondent on 27th June 2022 on account of additional assessments then outstanding for the years of income 2016, 2018 and 2019. The Appellant was thereafter advised, in the course of its engagement with the Respondent’s Section 42 Project Review Team, to redirect any refund claim to its 2017 return, being the only relevant year without a pending assessment. 149.Acting on that advice, the Appellant lodged a second refund application on 23rd August 2024, rejected by the Respondent on 31st January 2025 as time-barred, and a third refund application was lodged on 4th February 2025, again through the 2017 tax return, for the period 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017, which the Respondent likewise rejected as time-barred, by the decision communicated on 11th August 2025 now under appeal. 150.That decision was communicated by e-mail on 11th August 2025, on the sole ground that the Income tax refund claim for the period 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017 was time-barred. 151.The Tribunal refers to Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act, as it read when the Appellant applied for a refund of overpaid tax on 4th February 2025, to determine this issue: -“47.(1)Where a taxpayer has overpaid a tax under any tax law, the taxpayer may apply to the Commissioner in the prescribed form—(a)to offset the overpaid tax against the taxpayer’s outstanding tax debts and future tax liabilities including instalment taxes and input value added tax; or(b)for a refund of the overpaid tax—(i)in the case of income tax, within five years from the date on which the tax was overpaid;or(ii)in the case of any other tax, within twelve months from the date on which the tax was overpaid.(2)The Commissioner shall ascertain and determine an application under subsection (1) within ninety days and where the Commissioner ascertains that there was an overpayment of tax —(a)in the case of an application under subsection (l )(a), apply the overpaid tax to such future tax liability; and(b)in the case of an application under subsection (1)(b), refund the overpaid tax within a period of two years from the date of the application.(3)Where the Commissioner fails to ascertain and determine an application under subsection (1) within ninety days, the same shall be deemed ascertained and approved.(4)The Commissioner may, for purposes of ascertaining the validity of an application under subsection (1), subject the application to an audit.(5)Where the application is for a refund of tax under subsection (1)(b), the Commissioner shall apply the overpayment in the following order—(a)in payment of any other tax owing by the taxpayer under the specific tax law;(b)in payment of a tax owing by the taxpayer under any other tax law; and(c)any remainder shall be refunded to the taxpayer.(6)Where the Commissioner fails to refund the overpaid tax within the period specified in subsection (2)(b), the amount due shall attract interest of one per cent for each month or part thereof during which the amount remains unpaid.(7)Where the Commissioner notifies a taxpayer that an application under subsection (1)(a) has been ascertained and applies the overpaid tax liability to offset an outstanding tax in accordance with subsection (2)(a), interest or penalties shall not accrue on the amount applied to offsetting the outstanding tax liability from the date of the notification.(8)Where the Commissioner has applied the overpaid tax to offset an outstanding tax liability under subsection (2)(a), any outstanding tax after such application shall accrue interest and penalties in accordance with this Act.(9)Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, where a person overpays an instalment tax due under section 12 of the Income Tax Act, the Commissioner shall apply the overpaid tax to offset the taxpayer’s future instalment tax liability.(10)Where, after the application of the overpaid tax under subsection (9), the Commissioner later determines that there was no overpayment of instalment tax, the amount of the tax that was used to offset the taxpayer’s future instalment tax liabilities under subsection (9) shall be treated as a tax due to the Commissioner in the subsequent tax period.(11)The amount due under subsection (10) shall be due from the date that the Commissioner applied that amount to offset an instalment tax liability.(12)The Commissioner shall notify the taxpayer in writing of the amount due under subsection (10) and specify in the notification —(a)the interest on the amount due; and(b)any penalties due in respect of the amount due.(13)A person aggrieved by a decision of the Commissioner under this section may appeal to the Tribunal within thirty days after being notified of the decision.” 152.The Appellant’s case, distilled, rests on three propositions: first, that the credits underlying its claim were acknowledged and validated by the Respondent in the letter of 6th October 2022, such that the Respondent could not lawfully disallow them thereafter; second, that this validation, together with the Respondent’s own conduct and directions, created a legitimate expectation that the refund would be honoured; and third, that the application of 4th February 2025 was, in any event, deemed approved by operation of Section 47(3) of the Tax Procedures Act upon the lapse of the ninety-day period in Section 47(2) of the TPA. Each is addressed below, following the threshold question of timeliness, on which — as will be seen — the other two depend. 153.The Tribunal’s reading of Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Act is that the refund process is sequential: subsection (1) sets the timeline within which a taxpayer must apply for a refund of overpaid tax; subsection (2) sets the timeline within which the Commissioner must ascertain and determine that application; subsection (3) provides the consequence of the Commissioner’s failure to do so; subsection (4) empowers the Commissioner to subject the application to an audit; and subsection (4A) sets the timeline for determining an audited application, with its own consequence for default. It follows that whether the Commissioner complied with the second step cannot arise unless the taxpayer first complied with the first: an application made outside the window fixed by subsection (1) is not an application under subsection (1) capable of triggering subsections (2) or (3) at all. 154.It is accordingly necessary to determine whether the Appellant complied with that first step. The Appellant’s pleadings are inconsistent on the point of origin: in places it is said that the overpaid tax refunded through the 2017 return arose in 2014, and in others that it arose in 2015. The Tribunal has reviewed the documents the Appellant itself produced – the 2014 tax return, and proofs of payment of installment tax, Withholding tax (WHT) certificates, and advance tax receipts – which show that the tax claimed as overpaid arose in the accounting period 1st April 2013 to 31st March 2014, the Appellant’s 2014 accounting period, and was paid on the following dates:a.Kshs. 5,126,492 installment tax was paid on 19th December 2013;b.Kshs. 5,713,868 installment tax was paid on 19th March 2014;c.WHT certificates for WHT payments made in respect of interest payments to the Appellant on diverse dates in 2013 and 2014, including Kshs. 38,072 on 5th June 2013, Kshs. 63,703 on 1st October 2013, Kshs. 98,322 on 1st October 2013, Kshs. 11,620 on 1st January 2014, and Kshs. 54,493 on 13th January 2014.d.Advance tax receipts totalling Kshs. 65,595 receipted on 26th September 2013, 29th October 2013, 18th September 2013 and 24th October 2013. 155.Section 47(1)(b) of the Tax Procedures Act, requires a refund of overpaid income tax to be applied for within five years of the date of overpayment. The application tied to the decision under appeal was made on 4th February 2025, long beyond five years from any of the dates set out above, the earliest being 5th June 2013 and the latest 19th March 2014. It follows that the application was time-barred, and no refund was available to be claimed through it. 156.This conclusion is unaffected by the protracted and, at times, disjointed manner in which the Respondent handled the Appellant’s legacy ledger tax credits, that is, the successive referrals to the Section 42 Project Review Team, the Corporate Data Office, and later the Taxpayers Account Unit, of which the Appellant complains under grounds (c) and (e) of the Memorandum of Appeal. 157.Section 47(1)(b) of the Tax Procedures Act sets a limitation period running from the date of overpayment; it contains no provision suspending that period pending internal administrative review, and a taxing statute is not to be given an equitable gloss it does not bear. 158.The Tribunal made a decision on circumstances similar to this case in Fleur Investments Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E292 of 2024) [2024] KETAT 1655 (KLR), where a refund claim for tax reflected as overpaid since 2011 was held to have lapsed once the statutory period ran, the Tribunal there observing that equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent, and applying the principle in the W.E.C. Lines case (supra) that a party must pursue the redress the law provides, and do so in time. However genuinely attributable to the Respondent’s own internal processes the delay in this matter may have been, it cannot extend a limitation period Parliament has fixed. 159.The Tribunal takes judicial notice, in this light, that the Appellant’s other two refund applications relating to the same overpayment were equally out of time: the application of 26th September 2019, made through the 2019 return, was lodged more than five years after even the latest of the 2013/2014 payment dates identified above; and the refund application of 23rd August 2024, made through the 2017 return, was likewise late. None of the Appellant’s refund applications for tax overpaid in its 2014 accounting period was made within the five-year window fixed by Section 47(1)(b) of the Tax Procedures Act as measured from the date the tax was overpaid. 160.It follows that the Appellant’s reliance on Section 47(3) of the Tax Procedures Act cannot succeed. Deemed approval under that subsection operates only in respect of a valid application under subsection (1); it does not operate to validate an application that was, at the point of its lodgement, already outside the five-year window fixed by subsection (1)(b). Mayfair Insurance Company Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E1328 of 2024) [2025] KETAT 270 (KLR) and Sony Holdings Ltd v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2021] eKLR, on which the Appellant relies, each concern the Commissioner’s delay in deciding a refund application whose underlying timeliness was not in dispute; neither assists an applicant whose claim was already time-barred when made. Whether the application of 4th February 2025 was deemed approved by the lapse of the ninety-day period in Section 47(2) of the Tax Procedures Act accordingly does not arise. 161.The same difficulty is fatal to the plea of legitimate expectation. Even taking the Respondent’s letter of 6th October 2022, and its subsequent correspondence with the Corporate Data Office as having created an expectation that the validated credits would be applied or refunded, the Appellant’s own authority is against it. The Supreme Court in Kenya Revenue Authority v Export Trading Company Ltd [2022] KESC 31 (KLR) held, among the governing principles of the doctrine, that there cannot be a legitimate expectation contrary to clear provisions of the law. Section 47(1)(b) of the Tax Procedures Act is such a provision. No representation, however clear, and no conduct, however protracted, could have bound the Respondent to refund overpaid tax outside the five-year period Parliament has fixed, and legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to achieve that result. 162.This also disposes of ground (a) of the Memorandum of Appeal, that the Respondent erred in disallowing credits already acknowledged and validated by the letter of 6th October 2022. That letter, and the exchanges with the Corporate Data Office that followed it, formed part of a separate exercise to reconcile and migrate legacy ledger balances onto iTax; it was not, and did not purport to be, a determination of the refund application now on appeal. Nor, in any event, could it have revived a claim already time-barred: by October 2022, more than eight years had passed since the last of the payments giving rise to the 2014 overpayment. 163.In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent was justified in rejecting the Appellant’s Income tax refund application for the period 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017, by the decision communicated on 11th August 2025. Final Decision 164.The upshot of the above analysis is that the Tribunal finds that the Appeal is not merited. The Tribunal accordingly proceeds to issue the following Orders:a.The Appeal be and is hereby dismissed.b.The Refund Rejection Decision dated 11th August 2025 be and is hereby upheld.c.Each party to bear its own costs. 165.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2026.……………………………..….ROBERT M. MUTUMACHAIRMAN……………………………… ……JIMMY M. MALLAMEMBER……………………………DR. TIMOTHY B. VIKIRUMEMBER……………………………GLORIA A. OGAGAMEMBER