[2023] KETAT 335 (KLR)

[2023] KETAT 335 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application because there was no appealable decision by the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes that the Appellant was challenging. The Appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of a disputed tax assessment or any specific decision that could be appealed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KETAT 335 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Kiteco Housing Investments Cooperative Society Limited; Respondent: Commissioner of Domestic Taxes
Court
Tax Appeal Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Appeal 75 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application struck out
Judges
E.N Wafula, Cynthia B. Mayaka, RO Oluoch, EN Njeru, AK Kiprotich
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Appealable Decisions, Administrative Actions, Taxpayer Remedies
Source Language
en
Tax Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Tribunal Appealable Decisions Administrative Actions Taxpayer Remedies

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiteco Housing Investments Cooperative Society Limited

Appellant

Commissioner of Domestic Taxes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the application in the absence of an appealable decision.
  2. 2 Whether the application raises any actionable complaint or wrongdoing by the Respondent's officers warranting investigation by the Tribunal.
  3. 3 Whether the prayers sought are administrative in nature and thus outside the Tribunal's mandate.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application because there was no appealable decision by the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes that the Appellant was challenging. The Appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of a disputed tax assessment or any specific decision that could be appealed to the Tribunal. Furthermore, the issues raised by the Appellant were administrative in nature and did not fall within the Tribunal's statutory mandate, which is confined to resolving disputes arising from tax decisions. The Tribunal emphasized that any administrative grievances should be addressed internally by the Commissioner or relevant government agencies, not through the...

Court Disposition

application struck out

Orders

  • The application is hereby struck out.
  • No orders as to costs.