https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/ketat/2026/267

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI** **TAX APPEAL NUMBER E423 OF 2025** **LALJI VISHRAM HIRANI........…………………….………………………….….. APPELLANT** **-VERSUS-** **COMMISSIONER FOR INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT……....…RESPONDENT** JUDGMENT **BACKGROUND** 1. The Appellant is an individual taxpayer. 2. The Respondent is a principal officer appointed under Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act, CAP 469 of Kenya’s Laws. Under Section 5 (1) of the Act, the Kenya Revenue Authority is an agency of the Government for the collection and receipt of all tax revenue. Further, under Section 5(2) of the Act with respect to the performance of its functions under subsection (1), the Authority is mandated to administer and enforce all provisions of the written laws as set out in Part 1 and 2 of the First Schedule to the Act for the purposes of assessing, collecting and accounting for all revenues in accordance with those laws. 3. The Respondent conducted investigations against the Appellant for the years of income 2016 and 2017 following receipt of intelligence that the Taxpayer grossly under declared income. 4. The tax investigations covered the tax heads Income Tax, VAT and customs duties, the Respondent issued the Appellant with notice of assessment dated 25th September 2024 and a tax demand dated 26th November 2024. 5. On 20th February, 2025, the Respondent allowed the Appellant to file a late application for review. 6. On 24th February 2025, the Appellant objected to the assessments, consequently the Respondent vide review decision dated on 11th March 2025 confirmed the assessment. 7. Aggrieved by the Respondent’s Decision, the Appellant filed the present appeal vide notice of appeal dated 11th April 2025. **THE APPEAL** 1. The Appellant filed Memorandum of Appeal dated 30th April 2025 and filed on 4th May 2025 raising the following grounds of appeal: 2. That the Respondent erred both in law and fact by neglecting to consider vital clearance documents within the Directorate of Criminal Investigation file associated with the Appellant and origin of the alleged tax liability. 3. That the Respondent erred in law and fact by neglecting to consider that the subject matter was still under investigation with the Directorate of Criminal of Investigation and therefore, questions the origin and liability of the alleged tax arrears. 4. That the Respondent, despite being furnished with comprehensive findings relating to the Appellant's file, failed to conduct a thorough examination before issuing its final decision, thereby arriving at an unjust and erroneous determination. 5. That the Respondents' failure to consider and ascertain the relevance of the essential documents constituted a violation of the Appellant's right to a fair administrative process, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015. 6. That the Respondents' failure to consider the clearance documents and related material resulted in an erroneous assessment of tax liability, which has and will cause undue prejudice and financial hardship to the Appellant. 7. That the decision of the Respondents is unfair, irrational, and contrary to the principles of justice and equity, warranting intervention by this Honourable Tribunal. 8. That the 2nd Respondent, being the ultimate tax administration body, erred in endorsing and upholding the flawed decision of the Respondent without conducting an independent and impartial review of the Appellant's objection. **Appellant’s Case** 1. The Appellant’s case is premised on; 1. His statement of facts dated 30th April 2025 and filed on 4h May, 2025. 2. His written submissions dated and filed on 25th May 2026. 2. The Appellant stated that he became aware of the tax liability vide the correspondence dated 5th February 2019. That he was surprised by the findings that his KRA PIN was linked to an entity named Apcon Developers yet he had never authorized any individual to use his PIN for any purpose whatsoever. 3. The Appellant averred that he responded to the Respondent's correspondence through a letter dated April 2019, unequivocally denying any involvement with Apcon Developers Limited. 4. The Appellant averred that the business by the name Jayan Enterprises had been inactive since its establishment as the Appellant had no means to do business and that he was under employment. 5. Subsequent investigations were conducted by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), which led to the summoning of all individuals suspected of fraudulently establishing Apcon Developers. The Appellant stated that he was also summoned for questioning in 2021, despite his lack of involvement in the matter. 6. He averred that following the investigations, a Departure Prohibitory Order (DPO) was issued against the him on 8th January 2021. He noted that the prohibition prevented the Appellant from traveling abroad, including for a scheduled medical treatment trip to India. That this order was later lifted via a Kenya Revenue Authority notice dated 22nd April 2021. The Appellant pointed out that a result of the investigation, the names of the actual perpetrators of the fraudulent scheme were forwarded to the KRA for further action. 7. The Appellant submitted that lacking any evidence directly implicating him in the tax evasion, the DCI Investigation Officer formally proceeded with investigations with regards to the actual perpetrators. 8. The Appellant noted that the absence of evidence implicating him stems from his disclosure to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations that his vehicle was broken into and ransacked in 2019, resulting in the theft of crucial documents. he noted that he reported the matter under OB No. 28/23/2019 recorded at the Kilimani Police station 9. According to the Appellant, it was not until years later after the service of the Respondent's correspondence dated 8th February 2019 that he got into the realization that his documents, possibly the ransacked documents were used to register a business known as Apcon Developers. 10. The Appellant averred that it received a demand letter from the Respondent dated 26th November 2024 claiming the outstanding tax obligations. That the development came as a shock to him, given that he had already been cleared of any involvement in the fraudulent transactions of Apcon Developers. 11. The Appellant noted that during the period from 2017 to 2022, he was undergoing critical medical treatment for a life-threatening enlarged prostate and urinary-related condition, in addition to recovering from an elbow fracture. He pointed out that the treatment predominantly took place outside Kenya, requiring immediate medical attention and rendering him unable to respond to tax allegations during this period. 12. He asserted that his medical condition not only caused severe physical distress but also resulted in significant emotional and mental burdens, preventing him from addressing the alleged tax arrears in a timely manner. That this prompted his legal representatives, acting on his instructions, to file a late tax objection notice in response to the tax assessment dated 26th November 2024. He pointed out that the prayer to object out of time was permitted following the letter dated 3rd January 2025 from the Respondent. 13. He stated that vide a letter dated 23rd January 2025 addressed to the Respondent he pointed out that he was diligently working to retrieve the pertinent documents from the archived DCI file as referenced in the objection letter and thus requested for a 14-day extension to allow the DCI ample time to locate the file. He stated that the application was allowed. 14. According to the Appellant, vide a reminder of 3rd February 2025, and through his legal representatives, he sent a comprehensive request to the Directorate of Criminal investigations to expedite the retrieval of the necessary documents, as the Respondents had imposed a stringent deadline of 14 days. 15. The Appellant averred that noting it could take some time for the Directorate of Criminal Investigations to respond due to their internal processes, he requested for a further extension of 7 working days through the email dated 12th February 2025 addressed to the Respondent. 16. The Appellant stated that on the 5th March, 2025, he was invited for a meeting at the Investigations and Enforcement Department, KRA, wherein the he was tasked to explain the nature and status of the DCI investigations. The Appellant pointed out that he informed the representatives of the Commissioner that this was an issue of impersonation, identity theft and fraud by known person(s) who were summoned by the DCI and forensic examination conducted which established that his KRA PIN was being misused resulting in the alleged tax liability against the Appellant and his PIN. 17. The Appellant pointed out that he never received a formal response from the Respondents until 11th March 2025 when the Respondent issued its decision confirming the principal tax liability. 18. The Appellant averred that following the decision, he visited the Directorate of Criminal Investigation headquarters, to inquire about the status of the closed DCI documents linked him. He stated that the Directorate of Criminal Investigation confirmed that it had prepared and duly conveyed the pertinent documents to the Respondent. 19. According to the Appellant, vide a letter dated 13th March 2025, he informed the Respondent of the new development and implored on it not to overlook the DCI documents and that it should have taken consideration of the aforementioned documents before rendering the decision on the objection despite being in receipt, knowledge and possession of the aforesaid documents. 20. The Appellant argued that the DCI made an affirmation in their forensic examinations, that one, Kavit Shah, was fraudulently operating the bank accounts to the alleged companies linked to the Appellant. Further the Appellant pointed out that it was determined that the Cheques and the outgoing wire transfers were fraudulently drawn by Kavit Shah in the Appellant’s name through a fraudulently procured power of attorney. 21. The Appellant filed supplementary statement of facts dated 18th may 2026 wherein he stated that in the objection decision, the Respondents confirmed the domestic taxes principal tax liability at Kshs. 1,065,903,897 together with the resultant penalties and interest. 22. He averred that immediately prior to the issuance of the aforementioned decision, the Respondent was fully aware and duly informed through various written communications from the Directorate of Criminal investigations (DCI) and his advocates, *Messr. Jafarali & Company Advocates*, that the matter is being actively investigated by the DCI on the liability and authorship of the alleged taxes. 23. Upon receiving the decision, the Appellant on 12th March 2025, engaged Directorate of Criminal Investigation headquarters in regards to the matter at hand after he realized that the Respondents had neglected to consider vital clearance documents specifically a forensic document examination report within the Directorate of Criminal Investigation file associated with the Appellant, which serve as conclusive evidence exonerating him from the alleged accusations of the tax liability. 24. He stated that by Letter dated 4th February 2026, the DCI through the Respondent confirmed that documents had been forwarded based on earlier investigations conducted at DCI Headquarters. However, due to the nature of the complaint, challenges had been experienced in obtaining documents from the registrar of companies and account opening documents from DTB Bank, being the bank holding the purported account for Apcon Developers hence establishing the reasons for the delay in the investigations. He stated that the letter confirmed that the exhibits were obtained and had been forwarded to the DCI Forensic Document Examination for analysis. 25. The Appellant averred that the Respondent, by letter dated 12th February 2026 confirmed that the matter is under investigations and based on forensic analysis report dated 3rd February 2026 of Examiner Mr. Alex Mwongera SSP, the specimen signatures obtained from the account opening documents, certificate of registration of business names form, and statement of particulars form BN/3 and BN/2 were Dissimilar and Distinguishablein comparison to the Appellant’s known signatures. 26. According to the Appellant, the Respondent’s letter dated 12th February 2026 further confirmed investigations are ongoing to establish who were involved in the forgery for recovery of the taxes and prosecution of the perpetrators. 27. The Appellant reiterated that his vehicle was broken into and ransacked, resulting in the theft of crucial documents and that he reported the matter vide OB No. 28/23/2019 recorded at the Kilimani Police station. The Appellant contended that it was not until years later after the correspondence dated 5th February 2019 that he realized that the ransacked documents were used to register a business known as Apcon Developers. 28. The Appellant averred that while the Respondent in paragraph 26 of its Statement of Fact averred that the Appellant never availed any document from any investigation institution clearing him from ownership and control of the accounts, the Appellant noted that by letter dated 3rd April 2025, the DCI informed his advocates that on 11th March 2025 vide Internal Memo REF: DCI/IB/SEC/4/4/1/VOL.LXXXIII/194, the DCI had already communicated its preliminary findings of the investigations on the same day the that the Respondent issued its objection decision dated 11th March 2025, which findings established that one, Kavit Shah was operating the account in Diamond Trust Bank under the Appellant’s name. 29. Therefore, the Appellant contended that the Respondent’s initial assertion that the Appellant failed to provide clearance documents from DCI and the subsequent objection decision were premature and the Respondents ought to have considered all evidence before it before rendering any decision on the tax assessments. 30. According to the Appellant, the Respondents failed to conduct a fair, impartial, and complete inquiry prior to issuing the Objection Decision. He noted that the Respondents proceeded to determine serious allegations of tax evasion notwithstanding that criminal investigations into fraud, identity theft, and unauthorized use of Appellant’s credentials were actively ongoing before the DCI. He noted that the issue of authorship and culpability was therefore unresolved. 31. The Appellant averred that a public authority exercising quasi-judicial powers is under a duty to undertake adequate investigations and to consider all relevant circumstances before making a determination adversely affecting a citizen’s rights and obligations. 32. He stated that Article 47(1) of the Constitution of Kenya guarantees every person the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. Further, he pointed out that section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act requires an administrator, where an administrative action is likely to adversely affect rights, to give the affected person a fair opportunity to present their case and to consider all relevant material before making a decision. 33. The Appellant averred that while the Respondent did issue extension of time during objection review, the Respondent’s actions violated these constitutional and statutory safeguards by prematurely issuing the Objection Decision before the completion of investigations that were central to determining whether he was in fact responsible for the alleged taxes. The Appellant contended that the Respondent thereby denied him a fair and complete consideration of the dispute and failed to accord due regard to evidence capable of exonerating the Appellant. 34. In light of the circumstances, the Appellant maintained that the Respondent’s objection decision dated 11th March 2026 is not only premature but unlawful, procedurally unfair, unreasonable, and ought to be set aside for having been rendered in violation of both the Constitution and the applicable statutory framework governing tax administration in Kenya. 35. In his written submissions, the Appellant submitted that the tax assessments against the him are not sustainable in law and fact, given that forensic evidence and the Respondents' own communications conclusively establish that the subject bank accounts were fraudulently opened and operated by a third party using forged documents under the Appellant's identity. 36. He submitted that the invalidation of the Notice of Objection under Section51(3)(c) of the Tax Procedures Act Cap 469B was unlawful in the specific circumstances of this case. 37. The Appellant also submitted that the Objection Decision dated 11th March 2025 was arrived at in breach of the right to fair administrative action guaranteed under Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015. 38. The Appellant relied on a number of case laws including the following: 39. *Kirin Pipes Limited vs. Commissioner, TAT Appeal E1116 of 2024 [2025] KETAT.* 40. *Kenya Revenue Authority v Maluki Kitili Mwendwa [2021] KEHC4148(KLR) [2021] eKLR.* 41. *Mbuthia Macharia v Annah Mutua Ndwiga & Another, Civil Appeal No. 297 of2015 [2017l eKLR.* 42. *Hickman Motors Ltd. v Canada;* 43. *Samura Engineering Limited & Others v Kenya Revenue Authority, Nairobi Petition No.54 of 2011 [201] eKLR; and* 44. *Kenya Revenue Authority v Export Trading Company Ltd (Petition 20 of 2020) [2022] KESC 31 (KLR).* **Appellant’s Prayers** 1. The Appellant prayed that the Tribunal: 2. Do set aside the objection decision of the 1st Respondent dated 11th March 2025 and declare it unlawful, unfair and without merit. 3. Directs the Respondents to reconsider the Appellant’s tax assessment by taking into account all relevant evidence, including the DCI forwarded documents. 4. Order the Respondents to expunge all enforcement proceedings related to the impugned tax liabilities. 5. Declares that the 1st Respondent’s decision violated the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing and fair administrative action under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 6. Award the Appellant the costs of this Appeal. 7. Issues any other orders that it deems just and expedient in the circumstances. **RESPONDENT’S CASE** 1. The Respondent’s case was premised on; 1. Its Statement of Facts dated 16th June 2025 and filed on 18th June 2025. 2. Its Written Submissions dated and filed on 16th May 2026. 2. The Respondent averred that the objection decision was issued on the grounds that despite indulging the Appellant severally to provide documents from any Court or investigative body clearing him from the ownership of the accounts none was availed. 3. The Respondent averred that the Appellant only raised the issue of identity theft after the initial investigation of the tax evasion was made, and that the Appellant did not avail any document to show that he had in 2016 reported any loss of documents nor did he make any attempts during the said period to replace the documents. 4. According to the Respondent, a simple replacement of some of the documents at that stage would have stopped operationalization of the accounts with different documents. 5. The Respondent contended that the Appellant made the report to Kilimani Police Station way after the initial demand of 5th February 2019. The reporting of OB No. 28/23/2019 was therefore, part of the whole scheme to evade the taxes. 6. While the Appellant contended that the matter was under investigation by the Directorate of Criminal Investigation (DCI), the Respondent stated that no conclusive findings or clearance from the DCI had been formally submitted to or received by the Commissioner to inform the objection decision. In the absence of such information, the Respondent asserted that the Commissioner acted lawfully and within its mandate by relying on the evidence on record to issue the decision. 7. The documents provided by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations indicate that the Appellant's accounts were flagged by the Financial Reporting Centre on suspicion of being involved in money laundering scheme and tax evasion scheme for the years 2016 and 2017 and was therefore referred to the Respondent for tax evasion investigations. 8. The Respondent pointed out that the Directorate of Criminals Investigation has indicated that the matter is pending investigations and they are yet to confirm the accuracy of the allegations advanced by the Appellant. 9. The Respondent emphasised that the Appellant was duly afforded the opportunity to lodge an objection and was even granted an extension of time to do so. However, the Appellant failed to validate its objection by providing the necessary supporting documents. Consequently, the Respondent stated that the assertion that the Respondent failed to consider or assess essential documents is unfounded. The Respondent also asserted that the Appellant's right to a fair administrative process was not violated, as all procedural safeguards were observed and the Appellant given a fair opportunity to dispute the taxes assessed. 10. The Respondent reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the Appellant to substantiate any claims of non-ownership or lack of control over the accounts in question. The Respondent asserted that the Appellant's failure to discharge this burden reinforces the validity of the Commissioner's findings. 11. It stated that the Appellant's delay in providing conclusive evidence, despite repeated opportunities, undermines the credibility and supports the Respondent's position that the assessments were based on the best available information at the time. 12. The Respondent maintained that the tax assessments were issued in strict compliance with the provisions of the EACCMA, and the Appellant's non-compliance with statutory requirements rendered their objection invalid. 13. It contended that the grounds advanced fail as no evidence of clearance from the Financial Reporting Centre nor the Directorate of Criminal Investigation has been availed. 14. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant has not been discharged from domestic tax liability (Income Tax and VAT) by virtue of the letter dated 12th February 2026. The Respondent asserted that the DCI preliminary finding relates only to the account opening documents as provided by the Appellant and does not extend to the operative documents of the accounts, including the cheques and other withdrawal documents. Further the Respondent submitted that there is no conclusive finding that the accounts do not belong to the Appellant. it submitted that the said preliminary finding stated: *"Investigations are ongoing to establish persons who were involved in the forgery for recovery of taxes and subsequent prosecution of the perpetrators."* 1. The Respondent submitted that the decision to invalidate the Objection was proper and lawful on the basis that despite numerous indulgences granted to the Appellant, he failed to provide any document from a court or investigative body clearing him of ownership or control of the subject bank accounts. The Respondent submitted that this was contrary to the mandatory requirements of Section 51(3)(c) of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015, which demands that all relevant documents relating to the objection be submitted. 2. It submitted that the Appellant failed to adduce documents to support the objection therefore, it submitted that the Appellant failed to discharge burden of proof. 3. The Respondent cited the cases of **Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority; Proto Energy Ltd (Ex Parte) (Judicial Review Application E023 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 5 (KLR)**, and **Leah Njeri Njiru v Commissioner of Investigations and Enforcement & another [2021] eKLR** to support the position that the taxpayer is under obligation to adduce documents to support to demonstrate that the Respondent’s decision was incorrect but the Appellant failed**.** 4. The Respondent maintained that the objection decision was justified. **Respondent’s prayers** 1. The Respondent prayed that without the clearance from the various investigation bodies the Appellant remain the owners of the accounts and as such the liability for tax stands. **ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION** 1. The Tribunal having considered the pleadings, puts forth the following issues for determination: 2. **Whether there is a valid Appeal before the Tribunal** 3. **Whether** **the Respondent erred in invalidating the notice of objection and confirming the assessment** **ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS** 1. Having identified the issues for determination, the Tribunal proceeded to analyze the same as hereunder. **a. Whether there is a valid Appeal before the Tribunal** 1. It is not disputed that the Respondent issued tax assessment orders dated 26th September 2024. It is also not in dispute that the Appellant requested for extension of time to lodge late objection vide a letter dated 20th December 2024. The Respondent granted this request vide a letter dated 3rd January 2025 in which the Appellant was granted seven (7) days to lodge its objection. 2. The Appellant further filed a notice of objection on 10th January 2025. The Respondent Invalidated this notice of objection vide a letter dated 14th January 2025 on the basis that the Appellant failed to comply with Section 51(3) (c) of the TPA. In the said letter, the Respondent granted the Appellant seven (7) days to comply with the provisions of Section 51 (3)(c) of the TPA by providing the documents stated in the objection letter and including the KRA and DCI correspondences. Again, the Appellant failed to provide the documents within the stipulated time. 3. The Appellant vide a letter dated 23rd January 2025 requested fourteen (14) days to validate the objection. The Respondent granted this request vide an email dated 28th January 2025 and notified the Appellant the it had to issue an objection decision within the required timelines. The Appellant still failed to avail the required documents to validate the objection. Consequently, the Respondent confirmed the assessment on basis that the Appellant failed to validate the objection. 4. The Tribunal notes that the Respondent complied with its mandate under section 51(4) of the TPA by notifying the taxpayer that the notice of objection was invalid and by notifying the taxpayer on what to do to rectify the problem. 5. The Tribunal has examined the decision contained in the Respondent's letter dated 11th March 2025, which is the decision under Appeal. In that letter, the Respondent did not confirm, vary or reject the objection on its merits; rather, it declared the objection invalid for failing to meet the requirements of Section 51(3) (c) of the TPA, the Appellant having, in the Respondent's view, failed to submit a clearance report from the DCI on the bank accounts under investigation. 6. The Tax Procedures Act requires a taxpayer who disputes a tax decision to first lodge an objection against that decision under Section 51 before proceeding under any other written law. Section 51(1) of the TPA provides as follows: *"A taxpayer who wishes to dispute a tax decision shall first lodge an objection against that tax decision under this section before proceeding under any other written law."* 1. What constitutes a validly lodged objection is set out in Section 51(3) of the TPA, while Section 51(4) vests in the Commissioner the power to determine whether a notice of objection has been validly lodged. Those provisions state: *"(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) in relation to 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); and (c) all the relevant documents relating to the objection have been submitted.* *(4) Where the Commissioner has determined that a notice of objection lodged by a taxpayer has not been validly lodged, the Commissioner shall within a period of fourteen days notify the taxpayer in writing that the objection has not been validly lodged and request the taxpayer to submit the information specified in the notice within seven days after the date of the notice."* 1. The Tribunal observes that the determination by the Respondent that a notice of objection has not been validly lodged is an administrative exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 51(4) of the TPA. 2. Where the Respondent declares an objection invalid, the legal consequence is that the taxpayer is regarded as not having filed a notice of objection at all, and, pursuant to Section 51(1) of the TPA, is barred from invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal until it has properly lodged an objection and obtained an objection decision within the meaning of the Act. An invalidation of an objection is therefore not, of itself, an appealable decision. 3. This distinction has been settled by the High Court. In **Commissioner of Investigations & Enforcement v Vyas t/a Rocon Enterprises (Income Tax Appeal E144 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 16027 (KLR),** the Court, in analysing whether a decision declining a late objection was an appealable decision, held as follows: *"15. The letter of January 13, 2020 declined the application for a late objection by the respondent under section 51(7) of the TPA. He did not make or communicate his decision in relation to any assessment under section 52 of the Act. 16. The same having not been an objection decision, it could only be challenged by way of judicial review and not appeal to the tribunal. Definitely the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal before it."* 1. The reasoning in **Vyas** applies with equal force to the present Appeal. The Respondent's letter of 11th March, 2025 was not an objection decision determining the merits of the assessments; it was a determination, under Section 51(4) of the TPA, that the objection had not been validly lodged. 2. The Tribunal affirms that a discretionary administrative decision by the Respondent invalidating an objection does not amount to an appealable decision, and a taxpayer aggrieved by any alleged impropriety or unfairness in such a decision is entitled to ventilate that grievance through judicial review before the High Court and not by way of appeal to this Tribunal. 3. It follows that the decision the Appellant has appealed against is not an appealable decision within the meaning of the Tax Procedures Act and the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. There being no appealable decision, there is no valid Appeal upon which the Tribunal's jurisdiction can be founded. **b. Whether the Respondent erred in invalidating the notice of objection and confirming the assessment** 1. Having found that there is no appealable decision on record, and that the Tribunal is in consequence without jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal, the Tribunal is precluded from proceeding to determine the second issue, which concerns the merits of the assessments. **DETERMINATION** 1. The upshot to the foregoing is that the Tribunal finds and holds that the Appeal is incompetent and consequently makes the following orders; - 2. The appeal be and is hereby struck out; 3. Each party to bear its own cost. 4. It is so ordered. **DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF JULY 2026.** **……………………………..….** **ROBERT M. MUTUMA** **CHAIRMAN** **……………………………… ……..….……..……………..** **JIMMY M. MALLA. GLORIA A. OGAGA MEMBER MEMBER** **………………………………** **DR. TIMOTHY B. VIKIRU** **MEMBER**