https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/ketat/2026/223

 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRIBUNAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COUNTY COURT NAME: TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: TATC/E1384/2025 PAMWHITE LIMITED VS THE COMMISSIONER OF DOMESTIC TAXES JUDGMENT # BACKGROUND 1. The Appellant is a private limited company duly incorporated in Kenya under the provisions of the Companies Act whose principal activity is Transport and Freight. 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 reviewed the Appellant’s tax affairs and concluded that the Appellant had failed to file VAT returns for the period December 2024 to April 2025 despite allegedly earning taxable income. Consequently, the Respondent issued a default VAT assessment amounting to Kshs. 26,712,561.52 on 5th May 2025. 4. **On** 26th May 2025 the Appellant contended that the assessments were based on erroneous and inflated ETR data. **The Appellant lodged a Notice of objection on 4th June 2025.** 5. The Respondent confirmed the assessments through its Objection Decision dated 23rd July 2025. 6. Dissatisfied by the Respondent’s decision, the Appellant filed this Appeal. # THE APPEAL 1. The Appeal is premised on the Memorandum of Appeal dated 27 th November 2025 and field on 1st December 2025 raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Respondent erred in law and in facts by issuing an Objection decision whose VAT liability and computation was neither based on any material or true facts. 2. The Respondent erred in law and in facts by disregarding all the reconciliations, explanations and documentation provided by the Appellant including the Appellant’s proof of there being an error on the part of its employees in inputting figures in its ETR receipts. 3. The Respondent erred in law and in facts by disregarding the express provisions of the Value Added Act on erroneous figures that do not make any commercial sense. The Appellant is in the business of selling fuel and lubricants and its sales cannot amount to Kshs. 79,290,671.00. 4. The Respondent erred in law and facts by failing to consider the Appellant’s objection to the VAT Assessment of Kshs. 79,290,671.00. which sum is based on an erroneous ETR entries by the Appellant’s employees. 5. The Respondent erred in law and facts by assuming and holding that the Appellant was bound to satisfy the objected VAT assessment of Kshs. 79,290,671.00 together with accrued penalty and interest ignoring the fact that this figure was erroneous. 6. The Respondent erred in law and in facts by exercising its powers arbitrarily, capriciously and in bad faith by issuing unfounded and unreasonable VAT assessment based on unauthenticated and erroneous figures. * 1. The Respondent erred in law and in fact by disregarding the Appellant’s objection on the basis that the Appellant did provide relevant information a fact that was not true and in any event the Respondent through its auto-populated system can check the amount of purchases and sales of the Appellant. # THE APPELLANT’S CASE 1. In support of the appeal, the Appellant relied on its Statement of dated 27th November 2025 and field on 1st December 2025 and written submissions dated 30th April 2026 and filed on 6th May 2026. 2. The dispute concerned a data-entry error in the Company’s e-TIMS system in November 2024, where staff had entered Kenya Shilling values incorrectly on multiple ETR receipts; the specific erroneous and intended amounts were set out in the provided table. 3. The figures totaling Kshs. 79,290,671.00 were asserted to be entirely erroneous and without commercial substance, as the Company’s fuel and lubricants daily sales could not plausibly have reached those amounts and no underlying transactions existed. 4. Upon discovering the error on 5 December 2024, the Company undertook repeated efforts to obtain correction from KRA, including a formal letter to Malindi Tax Station on 5 December 2024 requesting a credit note (annex PAO-1), a further formal letter on 2 January 2025, a personal visit by the director to Malindi Tax Station who was referred to the e-TIMS Support Centre, directions from the e-TIMS Support team to email the support centre, an email to etimsupport@kra.go.ke on 8 January 2025 copying kenneth.mondo’’@kra.go.ke with no response, a follow-up email on 13 January 2025 titled "CREDIT NOTE CORRECTION" with no response, and another in- person reminder by the director to the Station Manager about the delayed filing. 5. Despite the Company’s efforts, KRA, sometime in April 2025 and without the Company’s knowledge or consent, filed a Self-Assessment Return for November 2024 on the Company’s behalf, assessing tax of Kshs. 9,977,066.54 based on the erroneous data; the Company objected in writing on 10 April 2025 to the Malindi station manager. 6. Thereafter KRA issued Default Assessments for December 2024 to April 2025 totaling Kshs. 26,712,561.52, which the Company contended were raised without regard to the actual sales (output) data and the actual purchases (input) data present in KRA’s auto-populated VAT return portal. 7. The Objection Decision dated 23 July 2025 had wrongly stated that the Company failed to provide information and documentation; the Company asserted that the relevant information was already in KRA’s system and that the limitation arose from KRA’s refusal to correct its system. 8. Contrary to KRA’s assessments, the Company provided its actual tax position for December 2024 to April 2025 based on KRA’s auto-populated VAT portal, showing the November 2024 self-assessment and the December–April default assessment to be mathematically and commercially impossible; the Company set out its correct monthly sales, VAT on sales, purchases, and VAT on purchases for November 2024 and each month December 2024–April 2025. 9. The Company contended that KRA’s assessments for November 2024 and December 2024–April 2025 ignored the Company’s sales and purchases data available in KRA’s auto-populated VAT return portal, which accurately reflected the Company’s trading data. 10. The Company stated that, as a petrol station, its primary source of purchases data was Vivo Energy Kenya Limited, and that this was reflected in KRA’s auto-populated VAT return portal. 11. The Company disputed KRA’s claim in the Objection Decision that documentation had been requested on 10 June 2025 and 17 July 2025, stating no such requests appeared in its email records and reiterating that it had proactively visited KRA offices to register its objection. 12. The Company contended that the purported request for documentation in the Objection Decision had been used as an unjustifiable pretext to reject a genuine objection to the default assessments for December 2024–April 2025. 13. The Company maintained that KRA’s self-assessment of Kshs. 9,977,066.54 for November 2024 and default assessment of Kshs. 26,712,561.52 for December 2024–April 2025 were inconsistent with its operations, baseless, and therefore mathematically and commercially impossible. 14. The Company presented KRA’s tabulation of assessments for November 2024–April 2025, which it said showed KRA had treated Company net sales and purchases as zero while imputing substantial VAT on sales, resulting in the stated net VAT liabilities for each month. 1. The Company asserted that KRA’s self-assessment for November 2024 had failed to consider the correct net sales and net purchases present in the auto- populated returns and instead relied on the erroneous data submitted. 2. The Company further asserted that KRA’s default assessments for December 2024–April 2025 likewise ignored the auto-populated returns’ sales and purchases data, contrary to KRA’s obligations. 3. The Company rejected the Respondent’s contention that documents had not been supplied, noting that KRA never requested documents and that KRA’s auto-populated system contained data that did not support the default assessments. 4. The Appellant submitted that the impugned VAT assessment lacked a proper factual and legal basis because it was derived from erroneous Electronic Tax Register (ETR) entries that did not reflect actual taxable transactions undertaken by the Appellant. In the Appellant’s submissions, the Respondent was promptly notified of these discrepancies through Annexure PAO-1, which demonstrated that transactions were incorrectly recorded at exaggerated values, including instances where entries of Kshs. 1,000,000 were recorded instead of Kshs. 1,000, resulting in an inflated total of Kshs. 79,290,671 as opposed to the correct figure of Kshs. 226,930.32. 5. The Appellant submitted that the disputed figures bore no relation to its actual business operations and lacked any economic substance. In the Appellant’s submissions, reliance was placed on *Kenya Revenue Authority v Man Diesel & Turbo SE, Kenya [2021] eKLR*, where the Court of Appeal held that although a tax assessment is prima facie valid, it cannot be sustained where a taxpayer demonstrates through credible evidence that it does not reflect the true factual position. 6. The Appellant further submitted that the Respondent’s reliance on patently erroneous data rendered the assessment factually defective and legally unsustainable. In the Appellant’s submissions, a lawful tax assessment must be based on accurate, relevant, and verifiable material, and where the foundational data is demonstrably incorrect, the resulting assessment cannot stand. Reliance was placed on *Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority ex parte Lab International Kenya Limited [2011] eKLR*, where the Court held that a decision founded on incorrect or unverified data is liable to be set aside. 7. The Appellant submitted that despite being formally notified and engaged through multiple correspondences, including Annexures PAO-2, PAO-3 and PAO-4, the Respondent failed to interrogate the commercial plausibility of the figures before adopting them as the basis of taxation. In the Appellant’s submissions, tax authorities are required to exercise rational judgment and evaluate the credibility of material placed before them. Reliance was placed on *Suchan Investment Limited v Ministry of National Heritage & Culture & 3 Others [2016] eKLR*, where the Court of Appeal held that a decision is irrational where relevant considerations are ignored or where the outcome defies logic and commercial reality. 1. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent failed to properly exercise its statutory powers under Section 31(1) of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015, which permits the Commissioner to make an assessment based on available information and to the best of the Commissioner’s judgment. In the Appellant’s submissions, that discretion is not absolute and must be exercised reasonably, judiciously, and on the basis of relevant and verifiable material. 2. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent disregarded reliable information within its own systems and instead relied on manifestly erroneous ETR entries despite having been notified of the errors through Annexure PAO-1. In the Appellant’s submissions, this approach was inconsistent with Section 5 and Section 17 of the Value Added Tax Act, 2013, which contemplate that VAT is chargeable only on actual taxable supplies supported by verifiable records. 3. The Appellant submitted that courts have consistently affirmed that the Commissioner’s discretion in making assessments must be exercised on rational and objective grounds. In the Appellant’s submissions, reliance was placed on *Kenya Revenue Authority v Man Diesel & Turbo SE, Kenya [2021] eKLR*, where the Court of Appeal held that the presumption of correctness of an assessment cannot stand where a taxpayer provides credible evidence demonstrating that it does not reflect the true factual position. 4. The Appellant further submitted that while Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act places the burden of proof on the taxpayer, that burden is discharged once reasonable and credible evidence is presented. In the Appellant’s submissions, reliance was placed on *Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Metoxide Limited [2022] KEHC 14613 (KLR)*, where the High Court emphasized that the Commissioner cannot ignore such evidence and proceed on the basis of assumptions or unverified data. 5. The Appellant submitted that it consistently engaged and cooperated with the Respondent in an effort to resolve the discrepancies, including through formal objection correspondence contained in Annexure PAO-5 and other prior communications. In the Appellant’s submissions, notwithstanding these efforts, the Respondent confirmed the assessment without reconciling the available data or addressing the explanations provided. 1. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent’s conduct was contrary to the principles articulated in *Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority ex parte Lab International Kenya Limited [2011] eKLR*, which requires the Respondent to act reasonably and fairly and to properly consider all material placed before it before arriving at a decision. In the Appellant’s submissions, the Respondent acted in excess of its statutory mandate by disregarding the Appellant’s evidence and proceeding on erroneous assumptions. 2. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent’s Objection Decision, contained in Annexure PAO-6, violated the principles of fair administrative action guaranteed under Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015. In the Appellant’s submissions, the Respondent was under a duty to act lawfully, reasonably and procedurally fairly, including undertaking a genuine evaluation of the material presented by the Appellant. 3. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent summarily rejected the objection on the basis that insufficient information had been provided despite the detailed explanations and supporting documentation availed. In the Appellant’s submissions, this conduct amounted to a failure to genuinely consider the material placed before the Respondent. 4. The Appellant submitted that administrative decisions must satisfy the requirements of legality, rationality and procedural fairness. In the Appellant’s submissions, reliance was placed on *Kenya Revenue Authority v Export Trading Company Limited & Another [2020] eKLR*, where the Supreme Court affirmed that the exercise of statutory power must conform to Article 47 of the Constitution and must not be arbitrary or oppressive. 5. The Appellant further submitted that the Respondent failed to consider relevant explanations and instead relied on demonstrably erroneous data, thereby rendering the decision procedurally unfair and substantively irrational. In the Appellant’s submissions, reliance was also placed on *Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority ex parte Lab International Kenya Limited [2011] eKLR* in support of the contention that all relevant material must be considered before a decision is reached. 6. The Appellant submitted that the impugned decision was disproportionate because it upheld a substantial tax liability founded on fictitious and commercially untenable figures while disregarding credible and verifiable information. In the Appellant’s submissions, reliance was placed on *Suchan Investment Limited v Ministry of National Heritage & Culture & 3 Others [2016] eKLR*, where the Court of Appeal held that a decision is unreasonable where it disregards relevant considerations or produces an outcome that defies logic and fairness. 7. The Appellant therefore submitted that the VAT assessment and the Objection Decision were founded on erroneous and unverifiable data, were issued in excess of the Respondent’s statutory mandate, and violated the principles of fair administrative action. In the Appellant’s submissions, the Appeal should consequently be allowed and the impugned assessment and Objection Decision set aside in their entirety. # Appellant’s Prayers The Appellant prays that this Tribunal: - 1. Allows its appeal; 2. Annuls the Respondent’s Objection Decision dated 23rd July 2025 based on the grounds above, as well as the information contained in the Statement of Facts attached; 3. Vacates the Respondent’s default assessment for the period of December 2024 to April 2025 totaling Kshs. 26,712,562.00. 4. Order the Respondent to accept the filed returns based on the actual auto- populated data for the period of December 2024 to April 2025 which reflect the true tax position of the Appellant. 5. Order the E-Tims Support team to correct November 2024 entries by issuing the requisite credit note. 6. The Costs of this appeal be awarded to the Appellant # THE RESPONDENT’S CASE 1. The Respondent’s case was premised on its Statement of facts dated 29th April 2026 and filed on even date together with its written submissions dated and filed on 25th May 2026. 2. The Respondent reviewed the Appellant’s tax returns and identified variances in the declarations made by the Appellant. Upon its review, the Respondent formed the view that the Appellant had failed to file VAT returns for the period November 2024 to April 2025 despite having earned taxable income. 1. The Respondent notified the Appellant of the identified discrepancies and requested the filing of the outstanding VAT returns. Following what it considered to be the Appellant’s failure to respond to the request, the Respondent estimated the Appellant’s turnover and raised default VAT assessments amounting to Kshs. 26,712,561.52 in principal tax for the period December 2024 to April 2025. 2. The Respondent proceeded to raise the default assessments on the iTax system on 5th May 2025 and 26th May 2025. Following the issuance of the assessments, the Respondent received Notices of Objection lodged by the Appellant on 4th June 2025. 3. The Respondent requested the Appellant to provide information and records to support its objection through an email dated 10th June 2025, reminder emails, and telephone communications. The requested documents included audited accounts, bank statements, sales and purchase invoices and ledgers, VAT analyses, proof of payment, and any other documents relevant to the objection. 4. The Respondent maintained that the Appellant failed to provide the requested documentation despite the reminders and follow-up communications. Consequently, the Respondent formed the view that the Appellant had not availed sufficient material to facilitate a review of the objection or amendment of the assessments. 5. The Respondent observed that the Appellant had not filed VAT returns for the period December 2024 to April 2025 and consequently estimated the Appellant’s turnover at Kshs. 166,953,510, resulting in VAT assessments amounting to Kshs. 26,712,562. The Respondent considered the Appellant’s contention that the estimated turnover figures were erroneous but maintained that adequate supporting documentation had not been provided to substantiate the alternative figures advanced by the Appellant. 6. The Respondent concluded that, in the absence of supporting records, there was no basis for disturbing the assessments and relied on Section 56 of the Tax Procedures Act regarding the burden of proof. The Respondent further took the position that the Appellant had not complied with requests for information issued pursuant to Section 59(1) of the Tax Procedures Act. 1. The Respondent consequently rejected the objection and confirmed the assessments on the basis that the available information was insufficient to warrant amendment of the assessments. The Respondent also noted that although certified original bank statements had been requested, uncertified statements were allegedly provided instead. 2. Upon reviewing the Memorandum of Appeal and Statement of Facts, the Respondent maintained that during the objection review process it allowed invoices that were adequately supported while disallowing input tax claims that were unsupported or contained inconsistencies. The Respondent therefore considered itself justified in disallowing certain VAT claims and issuing the additional VAT assessments. 3. The Respondent further maintained that the objection was properly disallowed because all the documents requested from the Appellant had not been provided. In support of this position, the Respondent relied on Section 17 of the VAT Act, arguing that input tax is only deductible where the taxpayer possesses the requisite supporting tax invoices within the prescribed statutory timelines. 4. The Respondent stated that in issuing and confirming the assessments it relied on the information available to it and exercised its best judgment in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Tax Procedures Act. The Respondent further stated that it compared the VAT declarations of the Appellant’s suppliers with the input VAT claimed by the Appellant before confirming the assessments. 5. The Respondent maintained that the Appellant failed to provide supporting documentation during the objection stage and that the additional VAT assessments were confirmed after it concluded that the objection had not been substantiated. The Respondent also relied on Section 17(3)(a) of the VAT Act and maintained that the Appellant had not provided original tax invoices or certified copies thereof as required by law. 6. The Respondent considered the lack of supporting documentation as sufficient justification for confirming the VAT assessments. In reaching its decision, the Respondent further relied on Sections 51(3) and 51(4) of the Tax Procedures Act as well as Section 43(3) of the VAT Act. 7. The Respondent maintained that the objection could not be allowed because invoices necessary for reconciliation and comparison with supplier declarations had not been provided. The Respondent further maintained that the Appellant failed to provide evidence explaining the inconsistencies identified in the VAT declarations. 1. The Respondent took the position that the Appellant had not sufficiently stated the grounds of objection or the amendments required to correct the assessment. The Respondent consequently rejected the allegations contained in the Memorandum of Appeal and Statement of Facts except where expressly admitted. 2. The Respondent maintained that the Appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proof imposed by Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act and consequently asserted that the confirmed assessments were lawful and ought to be upheld. 3. The Respondent submitted that the Appeal arose from the Appellant’s dissatisfaction with the Objection Decision dated 23rd July 2025, which confirmed VAT assessments amounting to Kshs. 26,712,561.52, exclusive of penalties and interest, for the periods December 2024 to April 2025. The Respondent submitted that the Appeal lacked merit because the Appellant failed to file VAT returns despite earning taxable income and further failed to substantiate its objection despite repeated requests for supporting documentation. 4. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant is a company engaged in transportation and freight services and is duly registered for VAT. In the Respondent’s submissions, a review of the Appellant’s tax affairs revealed variances in its declarations and established that the Appellant had failed to file VAT returns for the periods December 2024 to April 2025 notwithstanding that it had earned taxable income during the said period. 5. The Respondent submitted that upon identifying the discrepancies, it notified the Appellant and requested it to regularize its VAT obligations by filing the outstanding returns. The Respondent further submitted that the Appellant failed to respond to the requests, thereby necessitating the issuance of default VAT assessments amounting to Kshs. 26,712,561.52 exclusive of penalties and interest. 6. The Respondent submitted that the impugned assessments were lawfully issued pursuant to Sections 29 and 31 of the Tax Procedures Act. In the Respondent’s submissions, those provisions empower the Commissioner to issue default assessments and amend assessments based on available information and to the best of the Commissioner’s judgment where a taxpayer fails to comply with its statutory obligations. 1. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant’s allegation that the assessments were based on flawed ETR entries did not relieve it of its statutory obligation to file VAT returns and account for tax due. In the Respondent’s submissions, the existence of alleged discrepancies could not invalidate assessments that were necessitated by the Appellant’s failure to file returns as required by law. 2. The Respondent submitted that once the Appellant failed to file VAT returns despite earning taxable income, it was legally entitled to invoke its statutory mandate under Sections 29 and 31 of the Tax Procedures Act and issue assessments based on the information available to it and to the best of the Commissioner’s judgment. 3. In support of its position, the Respondent relied on ***Kenya Revenue Authority v Man Diesel & Turbo SE, Kenya [2021] KEHC 13347 (KLR)***, where the Court observed that the Commissioner’s determinations of tax deficiencies are presumptively correct and that such presumption remains until the taxpayer produces competent and relevant evidence to support its position. The Respondent submitted that the burden therefore shifted to the Appellant to disprove the assessments through credible evidence. 4. The Respondent further submitted that the Revenue Authority is ordinarily dependent on records maintained by taxpayers and is therefore disadvantaged in establishing an affirmative case where a taxpayer fails to provide supporting documentation. Consequently, the Respondent maintained that it acted lawfully and within the confines of the law when it issued the default assessments after establishing that the Appellant had earned taxable income but failed to file VAT returns. 5. The Respondent submitted that the VAT assessments amounting to Kshs. 26,712,561.52 were therefore lawfully and properly issued and ought to be upheld by the Tribunal. 6. The Respondent submitted that although the Appellant alleged that the assessments arose from flawed ETR entries and that the Respondent failed to consider reconciliations and explanations, the Appellant failed to provide sufficient documentation to support those allegations. In the Respondent’s submissions, the alleged discrepancies remained unverified because the Appellant failed to furnish the documents necessary to substantiate its position. 7. The Respondent submitted that upon receipt of the Notices of Objection, it requested the Appellant through emails dated 10th June 2025 and 17th June 2025 to provide audited accounts, bank statements, sales invoices and ledgers, purchase invoices and ledgers, VAT analyses, proof of payment and other supporting documentation necessary to facilitate review of the objection. 1. The Respondent submitted that despite the requests, reminder emails and follow-up telephone calls, the Appellant failed to provide the requested records. In the Respondent’s submissions, the Appellant did not furnish audited accounts, certified bank statements, sales ledgers, purchase ledgers, reconciled VAT records or supporting tax invoices capable of verifying the alleged ETR discrepancies and reconciliations. 2. The Respondent further submitted that although the Appellant claimed entitlement to input VAT deductions, it failed to provide the supporting tax invoices required under Section 17(3)(a) of the VAT Act. In the Respondent’s submissions, the law expressly requires a taxpayer seeking input VAT deductions to possess an original tax invoice or a certified copy thereof. 3. The Respondent submitted that in the absence of supporting records and primary source documentation, the Appellant’s allegations regarding flawed ETR entries, reconciliations and erroneous VAT declarations remained unsubstantiated and incapable of verification. 4. In support of this position, the Respondent relied on ***Dianga v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2023] KETAT 508 (KLR)***, where the Tribunal held that a taxpayer who makes averments without supporting them through documentary evidence fails to discharge the burden of proof imposed by Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant similarly failed to discharge that statutory burden. 5. The Respondent therefore submitted that the Appellant failed to sufficiently substantiate the alleged flawed ETR entries, reconciliations and explanations so as to warrant amendment or vacating of the impugned VAT assessments. 6. The Respondent further submitted that the Objection Decision dated 23rd July 2025 was properly arrived at after a review of the material available before it. In the Respondent’s submissions, the Appellant failed to provide the documentation requested during the objection review process despite several opportunities to do so. 7. The Respondent submitted that although the Appellant alleged that its explanations and supporting documents were not considered, it failed to specifically identify the documents that were allegedly ignored or demonstrate how consideration of such documents would have resulted in a different outcome. 1. The Respondent submitted that the Objection Decision expressly considered the material availed and found that the Appellant had failed to furnish sufficient documentation to facilitate review and verification of the objection. Consequently, the Respondent maintained that the decision was based on the information available to it and was reached in accordance with the law. 2. The Respondent further submitted that the basis of the assessments was clearly documented and stemmed from the Appellant’s failure to file VAT returns despite earning taxable income. In the Respondent’s submissions, the Appellant’s non-compliance necessitated the issuance of default assessments after it failed to regularize its VAT obligations. 3. The Respondent relied on ***Darwine Wholesalers Limited v Commissioner of Investigations and Enforcement [2023] KEHC 23537 (KLR)***, where the High Court held that an objection decision need only contain findings on material facts and reasons for the decision and that there is no obligation on the Commissioner to address each ground separately. The Respondent submitted that the Objection Decision met this threshold by clearly setting out the basis upon which the assessments were confirmed. 4. The Respondent further relied on the same decision where the Court affirmed that an objection decision is sufficient where it demonstrates that the Commissioner considered the grounds raised and explains that supporting records had not been provided. In the Respondent’s submissions, the Objection Decision communicated the reasons for confirmation of the assessments with sufficient clarity. 5. The Respondent consequently submitted that the Appellant had not demonstrated any basis upon which the Tribunal could interfere with the Objection Decision dated 23rd July 2025. The Respondent urged the Tribunal to uphold the said decision and confirm the VAT assessments as validly issued. 6. In conclusion, the Respondent submitted that the Appeal lacked merit, that the assessments were lawfully raised and properly confirmed, and that the Appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proof imposed by law. # Respondent’s Prayers 1. Based on the above grounds, the Respondent prayed that: 2. That the Objection decision together with penalties and interest be found to be due and payable. 3. That this Appeal be dismissed with costs to the Respondent as the same is without merit. # ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 1. The Tribunal has considered the parties’ pleadings and submissions, and has identified the following issues for determination: # Whether the Appeal is properly before the Tribunal 1. **Whether the Appellant discharged its burden of proving that the Respondent's Objection Decision dated 23rd July 2025 was incorrect.** **ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS** 1. Having identified the issues for determination, the Tribunal proceeds to analyse the same as hereunder: - # a. Whether the Appeal is properly before the Tribunal 1. The Tribunal has not cited the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal which confers it Jurisdiction pursuant to Section 13(1) of the TAT Act, which provides that:- *“(1) A notice of appeal to the Tribunal shall-* 1. *be in writing or through electronic means.* 2. *be submitted to the Tribunal within thirty days upon receipt of the decision of the Commissioner.”* 3. Section 13 (3) of the TAT Act, provides the remedy to any party who wishes to lodge an Appeal out of time, being that any such intended Appellant may seek leave of the Tribunal in writing seeking an extension of time and leave to file an Appeal out of time, a remedy the Appellant failed to utilize. The provision reads: - *“The Tribunal may, upon application in writing, extend the time for filing the notice of appeal and for submitting the documents referred to in subsection (2).”* 1. The Tribunal observed that the Appellant ought to have filed its Notice of Appeal within (30) thirty days after the Respondent’s Objection decision, which would have been on or before 1st September 2025. 2. Gleaning through the documents submitted by the Appellant, the Tribunal noted that there is no Notice of Appeal on record. The Tribunal further notes that Section 51(12) of the TPA equally provides that a taxpayer who disputes the decision of the Tribunal has 30 days to file an Appeal. 1. The Tribunal is of the considered view that the timelines for appealing the Respondent’s decisions are clearly set in the law, and all taxpayers are expected to comply with the timelines, save for when unavoidable circumstances prevent a taxpayer from fulfilling its obligations as envisioned in Section 13 (4) of the TAT Act which states: - *“An extension under subsection (3) may be granted owing to absence from Kenya, or sickness, or other reasonable cause that may have prevented the applicant from filing the notice of appeal or submitting the documents within the specified period.”* 1. The Tribunal buttresses the importance of adherence to timelines by referring to **Eastleigh Mall Limited v Commissioner of Investigations &** # Enforcement (Income Tax Appeal E068 of 2020) [2023] KEHC 20000 **(KLR)** where the court held as thus: - *“... Parliament in its wisdom knew that in matters tax, time is very crucial as those in commerce need to make informed decisions. If the Commissioner is allowed to exercise his discretion and stay ad-infinitum before issuing an objection decision, the tax payer would be unable to make crucial decisions and plan his/her business properly. The timelines set are mandatory and not a procedural technicality.”* 1. The Tribunal is further guided by the case of **W.E.C. Lines Ltd v. 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 v 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.”* 1. Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that without a Notice of Appeal there is no valid appeal before it. 2. Consequently, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Appeal is incompetent and untenable in law and not properly before it. The determination of the second issue is therefore rendered moot. # FINAL DECISION 1. The upshot of the foregoing is that the Appeal is incompetent and the Tribunal proceeds to make the following Orders: 1. The Appeal be and is hereby struck out. 2. Each party shall bear its own costs. 2. It is so ordered. # DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 17 TH DAY OF JULY, **2026** SIGNED BY/FOR: **★ TH E JUDICIAR Y O F KENY A ★** **HON. EUNICE NJERI NGANGA HON. BONIFACE KIBIY TERER HON. SANKALE SPENCER OLOLCHIKE** **HON. BILLY GRAHAM OKUMU MIJUNGU** Tax Appeals Tribunal Tribunal Date: 2026-07-17 14:24:33