[2020] KEHC 2825 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 2825 (KLR)

The court found that a decretal amount does not constitute a taxable supply under the VAT Act No. 35 of 2013, as it is neither included as an exempt service nor does it fit within the definition of a service. The VAT Act does not expressly subject court decrees to VAT, and there was no assessment of VAT by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 2825 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Muema Kitulu t/a Muema Kitulu & Co Advocates; Respondent: The County Secretary, County Government of Kitui
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 74 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
Application allowed. Deductions of VAT by the respondent declared illegal.
Judges
BC Koech
Legal Topics
Vat on Decretal Sums, Taxable Supply Definition, Court Decrees and Taxation, Refund of Unlawful Deductions
Source Language
en
Tax Law Civil Procedure Vat on Decretal Sums Taxable Supply Definition Court Decrees and Taxation Refund of Unlawful Deductions

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muema Kitulu t/a Muema Kitulu & Co Advocates

Applicant

The County Secretary, County Government of Kitui

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is legally entitled to deduct VAT from decretal sums awarded by the court.
  2. 2 Whether a decretal amount constitutes a taxable supply under the VAT Act No. 35 of 2013.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent had authority to assess and deduct VAT in the absence of an assessment by the Commissioner of Tax.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a decretal amount does not constitute a taxable supply under the VAT Act No. 35 of 2013, as it is neither included as an exempt service nor does it fit within the definition of a service. The VAT Act does not expressly subject court decrees to VAT, and there was no assessment of VAT by the Commissioner of Tax against the applicant. The respondent had no authority to deduct VAT from the decretal sum in the absence of such assessment or directive. The deduction of VAT by the respondent was therefore not supported by law and was illegal. The sums deducted as VAT must be refunded to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Deductions of VAT by the respondent declared illegal.

Orders

  • Any deductions of VAT by the respondent are not supported by law and are illegal.
  • Any sum so deducted as VAT must be refunded to the applicant within 14 days of the date of this ruling.