https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/ketat/2026/230

 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRIBUNAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COUNTY COURT NAME: TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: TATC/E1216/2025 TWIN CRAFT ELECTRICAL SERVICES LIMITED VS KENYA REVENUE AUTHORITY JUDGMENT # BACKGROUND 1. The Appellant is a private limited company and a registered taxpayer involved in electrical services. 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. Following a returns review for the 2018 to 2023 review period, the Respondent on 15th December 2023 raised additional Value Added Tax (VAT) assessments. 4. The Appellant objected against the assessments vide iTax on 8th April 2024. 5. The Respondent vide late objection rejection notice dated 29 th May 2025 confirmed all the VAT assessments as previously issued. 6. Dissatisfied by the Respondent’s decision, the Appellant lodged its Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 28th October 2025. # THE APPEAL 1. The Appellant’s case was founded upon its Memorandum of Appeal dated and filed on 28th October 2025 wherein the Appellant raised the following grounds: 1. That the Appellant was not given an opportunity to be heard before the online additional VAT assessments were made. 2. That all supporting documents were available for consideration. 3. That no expenses were allowed. 4. That no reasons for the decision were given. 5. That this is purely a matter for reconciliation at the ADR. # THE APPELLANT’S CASE 1. The Appellant’s case was premised upon its Statement of Facts dated and filed on 28th October 2025 together with documents attached thereto. The Appellant did not file its submissions. 2. According to the Appellant, the Respondent *suo moto* raised additional VAT assessments of Ksh 18,130,068.74 on 15th December 2023 against which the Appellant lodged a late objection on 8th April 2024 but the Respondent summarily rejected the objection on 29th May 2024. 3. That however, all documents are readily available for review and/ or reconciliation at ADR with a view to amicably resolving the dispute. 4. It was the Appellant’s case that the Respondent’s assessments have no basis in fact or in law and the entire assessment was arbitrary and unjust and the Tribunal ought to set the assessments aside. # The Appellant’s Prayers 1. The Appellant prayed that the Tribunal; 2. Allows the Appeal. 3. Sets aside the additional VAT assessments dated 15th December 2023. # THE RESPONDENT’S CASE 1. The Respondent replied to the Appeal through its: 1. Statement of Facts dated and filed on 26th November 2025; and 2. Written submissions dated 24th April 2026 and filed on 5th May 2026 2. As per the Respondent, it conducted a returns review with a view to establishing if the Appellant was tax compliant. That the additional VAT assessments emanated from variances established in income declared in the Appellant’s VAT and income tax returns for the 2018 to 2023 period. 3. It was the Respondent’s case that despite lodging a late objection against the assessments on 8th April 2024 vide iTax, the Appellant failed to adduce documentation in support of the same. 4. The Respondent fashioned a single issue as falling for determination in this Appeal as follows; Whether the Respondent’s late objection rejection notices dated 29th May 2024 are proper in law? 5. The Respondent asserted that though Section 24 of the TPA allows a taxpayer to submit returns in the approved form and manner prescribed by the Respondent, the Respondent is not bound by information provided therein and can assess for additional taxes based on any other available information. That the additional VAT assessments raised were based on variances in the income declared in the Appellant’s VAT and income tax returns. 6. The Respondent insisted that the Appellant’s late objection was rejected for failure provide support documents and that the late objection rejection notices were proper in law and were based on additional information and best judgement. 1. In its written submissions, the Respondent submitted on the following issues as falling for determination; 2. *Whether the Respondent’s late objection rejection notices dated 29th May 2024 are proper in law* 3. *Whether the additional VAT assessments are valid* 4. According to the Respondent, Section 51(2) of the TPA obligates a taxpayer to lodge a notice of objection within thirty (30) days from the date of notification if the tax decision by the Commissioner and that in case of lapse of the statutory period stated herein, the taxpayer is required to make an application for extension of time to lodge a late objection providing valid reasons for the delay together with supporting documentation justifying the lateness as provided for under Section 51(6) and (7) of the TPA. 5. That the grant of leave to lodge a late objection is not automatic but is conditional upon a taxpayer satisfying the statutory threshold including reasonable cause for the delay and providing supporting evidence which was not the case in the Appeal herein yet Section 56(1) of the TPA places the burden of proof on the taxpayer to demonstrate that the Commissioner’s decision is incorrect. 6. Additionally, that the mere provision of such documentation is not sufficient in itself to substantiate the claim. The taxpayer must further demonstrate how the grounds relied upon prevented the taxpayer from lodging the objection within the prescribed statutory timelines. The Respondent buttressed this stance by placing reliance in the case of **Mutuvi v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes, Tax Appeal** # 370 of 2022) [2023] KETAT 504 (KLR). 1. According to the Respondent, the Appellant bore the burden of demonstrating the nexus between the reason advanced and the failure to lodge the objection within the prescribed statutory timelines. That mere assertions unsupported by evidence showing how the stated circumstances occasioned the delay are insufficient to warrant the Respondent’s exercise of discretion in favour of extending time. 1. Thus, the Appellant’s claim that its Accountant left without handing over as the sole person handling the Appellant’s tax affairs including iTax login credentials ought to have been properly substantiated with credible evidence since Section 51(6) and (7) of the TPA are couched in mandatory terms. The Respondent supported this position by citing the holding in the following case; # Eastleigh Mall Limited v Commissioner of Investigations & Enforcement (Income Tax Appeal Eo68 of 2020) [2023] KEHC 20000 (KLR) 1. **Fortec Hardware & Accessories Limited v Commissioner of Investigations & Enforcement [2023] KETAT 219(KLR)** 2. **Obama Enterprises Limited vs Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Tax Appeal No. 667 of 2021** 3. As per the Respondent, Section 24(2) of the TPA enables the Respondent to independently assess a taxpayer’s liability as it is not restricted to information declared by a taxpayer in its returns and that where inconsistencies or omissions are noted, the Respondent is entitled to rely on any other available information to determine the correct tax position. 4. The Respondent submitted that inconsistencies emanating from variances noted raised doubt as to the accuracy and completeness of declarations made by the Appellant. As a result, the Respondent proceeded to amend the assessments as provided for under Section 31 of the TPA which must be read together with Section 24(2) of the TPA as they both grant the Respondent statutory mandate to verify the accuracy of taxpayer’s self-declared returns and to amend the same where discrepancies are identified. 5. That in the present appeal, the Respondent was entitled to amend the original assessment upon establishing that two tax heads did not reconcile. This was done to reflect the Appellant’s correct tax liability. The Respondent’s standing was supported by citing the case of **Rebecca Fashion (Kenya) Limited v** # Commissioner Investigations & Enforcement [2025] KETAT 278 (KLR). 1. It was the Respondent’s case that the Appellant failed to discharge its burden by providing documentary evidence to explain, reconcile or rebut the variances identified by the Respondent thus the additional assessments were proper in law and should be upheld. # The Respondent’s Prayers 1. The Respondent prayed that the Tribunal finds; 1. That the late objection rejection notices dated 29 th May 2024 are proper in law and the same be upheld. 2. That this Appeal be dismissed with costs to the Respondent as the same is without merit. # ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 1. The Tribunal having carefully considered the parties’ pleadings, documentation and submissions adduced before it notes that two issues call for its determination; # Whether the Appeal is properly before the Tribunal; and * 1. **Whether the Appellant discharged its burden of proof.** **ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS** 1. The Tribunal having established two issues for determination will proceed to analyse the same as follows; # Whether the Appeal is properly before the Tribunal. 1. The dispute herein relates to confirmed additional VAT assessments raised following a returns review for the 2018 to 2023 review period. 2. The Tribunal notes that whereas the Respondent’s additional VAT assessments were raised on 15th December 2023, the Appellant objected against the same on 8th April 2024. The Respondent’s confirmation and rejection of Appellant’s objection was on 29th May 2025. The Appeal against the decision was done on 28th October 2025. 1. The law is couched in mandatory terms in regards to timelines within which a taxpayer wishing to challenge a decision of the Respondent should file such an Appeal at the Tribunal. In this regard, Section 13(1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act (TAT Act) on procedure for appeal provides as follows; *“(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. Additionally, Section 51(12) of the TPA provides that; *“A person who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner under subsection (11) may appeal to the Tribunal within thirty days after being notified of the decision.”* 1. In this Appeal, the Appellant lodged a Notice of Appeal on 28th October 2025 against the Respondent’s decision dated 29th May 2025 which was clearly outside the legal timeframe and was lodged without leave of the Tribunal as provided for under Section 13(3) and (4) of the TAT Act. 2. Judicial precedence dictates that jurisdiction of a Court on a matter must be sufficiently established before a court moves to determine on a matter before it; and time as couched under statute must be complied with and is critical in establishing a Court’s jurisdiction. 3. The Tribunal is guided by the case of **Felister Wakonyo Waruhiu vs. Joseph Wachira Mwangi, Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2013,** where the Court of Appeal held as follows:- *“Can the overriding objective of this Court be invoked to save the appeal? We are of the view that the competency of the appeal goes to the jurisdiction of this Court and cannot be cured by the overriding objective of* *this Court. It is trite that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed within the requisite time and/ or appeals filed out of time with leave of the court.”* 1. The Tribunal further relies on the case of **Owners of Motor Vessel “Lilian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd eKLR**, where the Court held: *“I think it is reasonably plain that a question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity, and the court seized of the matter, is then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it. Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no powers to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before judgement is given”* 1. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Appeal is not properly before it and must down its tools for want of jurisdiction which has not been properly invoked. 2. Consequently, the analysis of the second issue for determination is hereby rendered moot. # FINAL DECISION 1. The upshot of the foregoing is that the Tribunal accordingly proceeds to make the following Orders: 2. This Appeal be and is hereby struck out. 3. Each party to bear its own costs. 4. It is so Ordered. # DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 SIGNED BY/FOR: **★ TH E JUDICIAR Y O F KENY A ★** **HON. EUNICE NJERI NGANGA HON. SANKALE SPENCER OLOLCHIKE** **HON. BERNADETTE MUTHIRA GITARI** **HON. BILLY GRAHAM OKUMU MIJUNGU** Tax Appeals Tribunal Tribunal Date: 2026-07-06 18:02:55