https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/ketat/2026/309

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI TAT APPEAL NO E1431 OF 2025 GOLDA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED................................................. …....……APPELLANT COMMISSIONER -VS- FOR DOMESTIC TAXES.................................................RESPONDENT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND 1. The Appellant is a limited liability company incorporated in Kenya and whose principal business involves construction and general supplies. 2. The Respondent is the principal officer appointed under Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act. The Kenya Revenue Authority is an agency of the Government of Kenya mandated with the duty of collection and receipting of all tax revenue, and the administration and enforcement of all tax laws set out in parts 1 & 2 of the First Schedule to the Act, including assessing, collecting, and accounting for all tax revenues in accordance with those laws. 3. On 28th March 2025 and 17th April 2025, the Respondent issued the Appellant with additional VAT and income tax assessments respectively Judgment TAT No. E1431 of 2025 – Golda Technologies Ltd -vs- Commissioner for Domestic Taxes Page 1 of 16 for the months of February, April and November 2023, and April 2024; and the years 2020 and 2021. 4. On 8th September 2025, the Appellant lodged a late objection application to the additional VAT and income tax assessments. The Respondent approved the Appellant’s application to lodge a late objection application vide its letter dated 15th September, 2025. 5. On 7th November 2025, the Respondent issued its Objection Decision fully rejecting the Appellant’s objection. The said Objection Decision was apparently communicated via email to the Appellant on 19th November 2025. Subsequently, the Respondent issued Confirmation of Assessment Notices via iTax on 9th December 2025. 6. On 5th December 2025, the Appellant lodged this Appeal vide its Notice of Appeal of even date. THE APPEAL 7. In its Memorandum of Appeal dated 10th December, 2025, the Appellant raised the following grounds of appeal: - a. The Respondent issued its Objection Decision in about 72 days after the objection application contrary to Section 51(11) of the Tax Procedures Act, which requires an Objection Decision to be made within 60 days. b. The Respondent issued another Objection Decision through iTax on 9th December 2025, 92 days after objection application contrary to Section 51(11) of the Tax Procedures Act. Judgment TAT No. E1431 of 2025 – Golda Technologies Ltd -vs- Commissioner for Domestic Taxes Page 2 of 16 c. The Respondent lacked jurisdiction to issue another Objection Decision on 9th December 2025 as the Appellant had already filed its Notice of Appeal and served it upon the Respondent. d. The Respondent did not give its comprehensive findings on the documents provided which were relevant the dispute thus contravening Article 47 of the Constitution and Fair Administrative Action Act. The Respondent simply stated in its decision that the input VAT was claimed by another taxpayer without giving details. e. The Objection Decision issued on 19th November 2025 is invalid for having not been processed through the iTax platform. f. The Respondent assessed VAT of Kshs. 1,059,411.52 for November 2023 on services provided to a taxpayer, the Diocese of Marsabit Registered Trustees, which had been issued with VAT exemption certificate for the particular service. g. The Respondent assessed income tax for 2020 and 2021 based on the variance between VAT returns and income tax returns, The variances from land leases for gravel excavation and the purchase of river sand. The suppliers were not registered for VAT hence the variance. h. The Appellant provided the documents sought on 30th September 2025, but the Respondent did not review the same but decided to issue an unfair decision. APPELLANT’S CASE Judgment TAT No. E1431 of 2025 – Golda Technologies Ltd -vs- Commissioner for Domestic Taxes Page 3 of 16 8. The Appellant’s case is based on its Statement of Facts dated 10th December 2025, wherein the Appellant merely reiterated the factual background leading to the issuance of the Respondent’s Objection Decision dated 7th November 2025 and the Confirmation of Assessment Notices dated 9th December 2025. The Appellant also filed Written Submissions dated 15th May, 2026. 9. In its written submissions, the Appellant submitted that the Respondent’s Objection Decision was issued out of statutory time and that it had discharged its burden of proof, and that the pendulum shifted to the Respondent. In this regard, the Appellant sought to rely on several precedents, including TAT Appeal No 974 of 2O22 Inland Africa Logistics Limited -vs- Commissioner of Investigation and Enforcement; and Commissioner Investigation & Enforcement v Marylebone Properties Limited (2025) KEHC 3314 (KLR); amongst others. Appellant’s Prayers 10. The Appellant prayed to the Tribunal for the following orders: - a) The Appeal be allowed. b) The Respondent’s Objection Decision dated 7th November 2025 and issued on 19th November 2025 of Kshs. 2,133,424.11 be set aside. c) Any other or further relief as the Tribunal deems fit to grant in the circumstances. RESPONDENT’S CASE Judgment TAT No. E1431 of 2025 – Golda Technologies Ltd -vs- Commissioner for Domestic Taxes Page 4 of 16 11. The Respondent filed its Statement of Facts dated 3rd February 2026 and Written Submissions dated 22nd May, 2026 in opposition to the Appeal. 12. The Respondent averred that its Objection Decision was lawfully issued on 7th November 2025, which was within the statutory sixty (60) days prescribed under Section 51(11) of the Tax Procedures Act. 13. The Respondent further averred that the sixty-day period began to run on 8th September 2025, being when the Appellant made a formal application to lodge its objection out of time, which application was duly considered by the Respondent. Computed from that date, the Objection Decision issued on 7th November 2025 fell squarely within the permissible statutory timeline. Accordingly, there was no breach of Section 51(11) of the TPA, and the Appellant’s assertion to the contrary is misconceived, erroneous and unsupported in law. 14. The Respondent stated that the Appellant has mischaracterized routine iTax system confirmations as Objection Decisions, which is legally and factually incorrect. The iTax confirmation assessments were purely administrative system actions taken to effect an already concluded Objection Decision, and did not constitute Objection Decisions within the meaning of Section 51(10) of the TPA. 15. The Respondent contended that the only Objection Decision that meets the statutory threshold under Section 51(10) of the TPA is a written decision stating the Commissioner’s findings, reasons, and the basis for confirming or vacating the assessment, being the decision issued on 7th November, 2025. Subsequent iTax entries did not contain independent findings; did not purport to review or reconsider the objection; and did not reopen the objection process. Judgment TAT No. E1431 of 2025 – Golda Technologies Ltd -vs- Commissioner for Domestic Taxes Page 5 of 16 16. The Respondent further contended that iTax entries merely operationalized and reflected the outcome of the Objection Decision already made, and cannot in law be construed as a fresh Objection Decision or an exercise of jurisdiction after the filing of the Notice of Appeal. 17. The Respondent averred that its Objection Decision clearly outlined the basis for confirmation of the assessments including disallowed input VAT due to double claims by another taxpayer; unsupported purchases; variances between the VAT and income tax returns; and incorrect classification of taxable suppliers as exempt. Where the Appellant failed to provide documents, the Respondent lawfully relied on third-party declarations and system data. The Objection Decision, therefore, complied with Article 47 of the Constitution and Fair Administrative Action as reasons were given based on available material. 18. The Respondent averred that no Objection Decision was issued on 19th November 2025. The only Objection Decision issued in the matter, and the very decision against which the Appellant lodged the present Appeal, is the Objection Decision dated 7th November 2025. 19. The Respondent further averred that the correspondence of 19th November 2025 was merely an email communication responding to the Appellant’s queries and classifying matters arising from the Objection Decision already issued on 7th November 2025. 20. The Respondent stated that the said email did not contain fresh findings, did not reconsider the objection, and did not purport to vary or replace the Objection Decision. The body of the email Judgment TAT No. E1431 of 2025 – Golda Technologies Ltd -vs- Commissioner for Domestic Taxes Page 6 of 16 correspondence did not amount to an Objection Decision within the meaning of Section 51(10) of the TPA. 21. The Respondent further stated that the Objection Decision of 7th November 2025 fully complied with Section 51(10) of the TPA as it was issued in writing, it set out the Respondent’s findings and reasons, it confirmed the assessments, and it informed the Appellant of the right of Appeal. 22. It is the Respondent’s case that Section 51(10) of the TPA does not require that an Objection Decision be issued through the iTax platform, nor does it recognize informal correspondence as constituting an Objection Decision. What is material is substantive compliance with the statutory requirements, which was achieved through the Objection Decision of 7th November 2025. 23. The Respondent averred that the Appellant’s allegation that the assessed VAT of Kshs. 1,059,411.52 for November 2023 arose from exempt supplies is unsupported and unproven. While the Appellant alleged that the services were rendered to the Diocese of Marsabit Registered Trustees, an entity purportedly holding a VAT exemption certificate, the Appellant failed to provide a valid exemption certificate applicable to the specific supplies in question, and neither have they produced the same before the Tribunal. 24. The Respondent asserted that no evidence has been availed to demonstrate that the exemption certificate was in force during the relevant period, and the exemption expressly covered the specific services supplied by the Appellant. Under the VAT Act, exemption is Judgment TAT No. E1431 of 2025 – Golda Technologies Ltd -vs- Commissioner for Domestic Taxes Page 7 of 16 not automatic and must be strictly proved by the taxpayer claiming it. The principle that he who alleges must prove squarely applies. 25. The Respondent submitted that it noted material variances between purchases declared in VAT returns and those declared in income tax returns for the years 2020 and 2021. While the Appellant attributed the variance to transactions involving land leases for gravel excavation and purchase of river sand, no supporting contracts, agreements, or reconciliations to substantiate the same were provided. 26. The Respondent further submitted that the while the Appellant alleged to have submitted documents on 30th September 2025, the documents provided were incomplete, insufficient, or not relevant to resolving the objection. The statutory obligation to submit all relevant documents rests with the Appellant, and partial or non-responsive documentation does not satisfy Section 51(3)9c) of the TPA. 27. The Respondent maintained that the taxes outlined in its assessment and the Objection Decision conformed to the laws, and the same should be upheld. The Respondent reiterated the above assertions in its written submissions dated 22nd May, 2026 and submitted that its additional assessments are proper and justified. Respondent’s Prayers 28. The Respondent prayed to the Tribunal for the following orders: - a) The Appeal be dismissed with costs to the Respondent. Judgment TAT No. E1431 of 2025 – Golda Technologies Ltd -vs- Commissioner for Domestic Taxes Page 8 of 16 b) The Respondent’s Objection Decision dated 7th November 2025 be upheld. c) Costs be awarded to the Respondent. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 29. The Tribunal having considered the parties' pleadings, submissions, and documents filed before it is of the view that the following issues fall for its determination: - a) Whether the Respondent issued its Objection Decision within the statutory timelines under Section 51 of the Tax Procedures Act; and, if so, b) Whether the Respondent’s Objection Decision dated 7th November, 2025 is justified. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION a) Whether the Respondent issued its Objection Decision within the statutory timelines under Section 51 of the Tax Procedures Act; 30. In its Memorandum of Appeal and submissions, the Appellant specifically outlined the following grounds of Appeal, alleging that the Objection Decision was issued out of time: - a) That the Respondent issued its Objection Decision on or about 72 days after the objection application, contrary to Section 51(11) of the Tax Procedures Act, which requires an Objection Decision to be made within 60 days; and Judgment TAT No. E1431 of 2025 – Golda Technologies Ltd -vs- Commissioner for Domestic Taxes Page 9 of 16 b) That the Respondent issued another Objection Decision through iTax on 9th December 2025, 92 days after the objection application, contrary to Section 51(11) of the Tax Procedures Act. 31. In rebuttal, the Respondent submitted that its Objection Decision was lawfully issued on 7th November 2025, which was within the statutory sixty (60) days prescribed under Section 51(11) of the Tax Procedures Act. 32. The Respondent further submitted that the sixty-day period began to run on 8th September 2025, being when the Appellant made a formal application to lodge its objection out of time, and which application was duly considered by the Respondent. Computed from that date, the Objection Decision issued on 7th November 2025 fell squarely within the permissible statutory timeline. Accordingly, there was no breach of Section 51(11) of the TPA, and the Appellant’s assertion to the contrary is misconceived, erroneous, and unsupported in law. 33. Against the background on these rival submissions, the Tribunal reviewed the records before it. From the records, it is not contested that the following activities took place leading to the issuance of the Objection Decision dated 7th November 2025: - a) Appellant lodged its late objection application via iTax on 8th September 2025; b) The Respondent issued a formal letter dated 15th September 2025 allowing the Appellant to lodge a late objection application and to validate their objection; Judgment TAT No. E1431 of 2025 – Golda Technologies Ltd -vs- Commissioner for Domestic Taxes Page 10 of 16 c) The Respondent, via email 24th September 2025 informed the Appellant that their objection had not been validly lodged and allowed them up to 30th September 2025 to provide records and support their late objection; d) The Respondent rendered its Objection Decision on 7th November 2025, and the same was communicated to the Appellant vide email on 19th November 2025. 34. Section 51 (11) of the Tax Procedures Act regulates the period for rendering an Objection Decision once a valid notice of objection has been lodged. It provides as follows: - 51(11) The Commissioner shall make the objection decision within sixty days from the date of receipt of a valid notice of objection failure to which the objection shall be deemed to be allowed (emphasis added) 35. Evidently, the statutory timelines envisaged under Section 51(11) of the TPA presume that the Appellant had lodged a valid objection. In the instant Appeal, it is evident that the Appellant had not validated its objection by 24th September 2025, which is why the Respondent wrote to it to provide the relevant records and documents. In fact, the Appellant itself confirmed this position as it proceeded to attach several documents in support of its objection in its email to the Respondent of 30th September 2025. It, therefore, follows that the Appellant acknowledged that it had not lodged a valid objection by 30th September 2025. 36. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that regardless of whether the impugned Objection Decision was issued on 7th November 2025 or 19th Judgment TAT No. E1431 of 2025 – Golda Technologies Ltd -vs- Commissioner for Domestic Taxes Page 11 of 16 November 2025, it would still fall within the statutory timelines of sixty (60) days from 30th September 2025 when the Appellant apparently validated its objection. 37. On the question of whether iTax Confirmation of Assessment Notices issued on 9th December, 2025 constituted a second Objection Decision, the Tribunal finds that the same is moot as the Appellant’s own Notice of Appeal refers to the Respondent’s Objection Decision given on 19th November 2025. b) Whether the Respondent’s Objection Decision dated 7th November, 2025 is justified. 38. Having determined that the Objection Decision was issued within the statutory timelines, it follows that the Tribunal has to determine whether it was justified. In its Objection Decision, the Respondent justified rejecting the Appellant’s objection and confirming the additional assessments on the grounds that the Appellant had not provided documents sought, including VAT tax exemption certificate for the Diocese of Marsabit Registered Trustees. 39. From the Objection Decision, it is not contested that the Respondent sought the following documents from the Appellant, and which it submitted were never provided, leading to confirmation of the assessments: - a. Bank statements for the periods assessed, b. Audited financial statements, c. General ledgers, d. Expenses for the period under review and their support for the period assessed. Judgment TAT No. E1431 of 2025 – Golda Technologies Ltd -vs- Commissioner for Domestic Taxes Page 12 of 16 e. Contract documents f. All supporting invoices and other documents relevant to support. 40. In its email to the Respondent of 30th September 2025, it is apparent that the Appellant only provided the following documents: - a. Copies of relevant input receipts for April 2024 VAT return; b. An Excel sheet containing analysis of the 2021 income tax return 41. Section 59 of the Tax Procedures Act (cap 469B) provides as follows regarding the Appellant’s duty to produce documents and records as may be sought by the Respondent: - (1) For the purposes of obtaining full information in respect of the tax liability of any person or class of persons, or for any other purposes relating to a tax law, the Commissioner or an authorised officer may require any person, by notice in writing, to – (a) produce for examination, at such time and place as may be specified in the notice, any documents (including in electronic format) that are in the person's custody or under the person's control relating to the tax liability of any person; (b)furnish information relating to the tax liability of any person in the manner and by the time as specified in the notice; or (c) attend, at the time and place specified in the notice, for the purpose of giving evidence in Judgment TAT No. E1431 of 2025 – Golda Technologies Ltd -vs- Commissioner for Domestic Taxes Page 13 of 16 respect of any matter or transaction appearing to be relevant to the tax liability of any person. 42. Section 56 (1) of the Tax Procedures Act (cap 469B), which provides as follows regarding the Appellant’s burden of proof: - In any proceedings under this Part, the burden shall be on the taxpayer to prove that a tax decision is incorrect. 43. Furthermore, Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act (cap 469A) provides as follows on the Appellant’s burden of proof: - In a proceeding before the Tribunal, the appellant has the burden of proving—(a)where an appeal relates to an assessment, that the assessment is excessive; or(b)in any other case, that the tax decision should not have been made or should have been made differently. 44. The Honourable Tribunal has also previously reiterated the Appellant’s duty to discharge its burden of proof in the first instance. In Abyssinia Iron and Steel Ltd -vs- Commissioner of Customs and Border Control (TAT No. 435 of 2022), the Tribunal held as follows: - The bottom line is that once the Appellant has provided evidence that the Respondent's assessment was wrong, then the Respondent must push back and show that its assessment was not arbitrary, capricious, or imagined. The onus will then shift back to the Appellant once the Respondent has discharged its burden on a balance of convenience to discharge the prima facie case that has been presented by the Respondent. Judgment TAT No. E1431 of 2025 – Golda Technologies Ltd -vs- Commissioner for Domestic Taxes Page 14 of 16 45. In the instant appeal, and having considered the pleadings and records before it, the Tribunal is therefore constrained to find and hold that the Appellant did not sufficiently support its objection to the Respondent’s additional VAT and income tax assessments, and thus it did not discharge its burden of proof. The Respondent’s additional assessments as per the Objection Decision dated 7th November 2025 are therefore justified. DISPOSITION 46. The upshot of the foregoing analysis is that the Tribunal find and holds that the Appeal lacks merit and proceeds to issue the following orders: - a. The Appeal be and is hereby dismissed. b. The Respondent’s Objection Decision dated 7th November, 2025 be and is hereby upheld. c. Each Party is to bear its own costs. 47. It is so ordered. DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this ………31st …..…... day of ……… July....… 2026 ..........................………………………. DR. RODNEY ODHIAMBO OLUOCH CHAIRPERSON Judgment TAT No. E1431 of 2025 – Golda Technologies Ltd -vs- Commissioner for Domestic Taxes Page 15 of 16 .…..….……………………. ..…. ………………………. ABDULLAHI M. DIRIYE DR. ERICK MEMBER MEMBER KOMOLO Judgment TAT No. E1431 of 2025 – Golda Technologies Ltd -vs- Commissioner for Domestic Taxes Page 16 of 16