https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/ketat/2026/322

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI** **TAX APPEAL NO E264 OF 2026** **WIOCC SERVICES KENYA LIMITED .......................................................... APPELLANT** **VERSUS** **COMMISSIONER OF LEGAL SERVICES AND BOARD CO-ORDINATION. RESPONDENT** **JUDGEMENT** **BACKGROUND** 1. The Appellant is a limited liability company incorporated in Kenya in 2017 after taking over the operations of WIOCC Kenya Branch. Its principal activity is the provision of business support services to its parent entity WIOCC Mauritius domiciled in Mauritius 2. The Respondent is a principal officer appointed under Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act Cap 469 Laws of Kenya. Under Section 5(1), the Respondent is an agency of the Government for the collection and receipt of all revenue. Further under Section 5(2) with respect to performance of its functions under subsection (1), the Respondent is mandated to administer and enforce all provisions of the written laws as set out in Part 1 & 2 of the First Schedule to the Act for the purposes of assessing, collecting and accounting for all revenue in accordance with those laws. 3. The Appellant lodged a VAT refund claim for the period January 2021 to June 2021 on 29th September 2021 which was rejected due to a pending debt status in the Respondent’s system. 4. The issue was later resolved and the Appellant subsequently submitted a new application for VAT refund on 8th September 2025. The Respondent then issued rejection orders on 26th January 2026, 16th February 2026 and 9th February 2026. 5. Dissatisfied with the Respondent’s rejection orders the Appellant filed its Notice of Appeal dated 6th March 2026 and filed on even date. **THE APPEAL** 1. The Appeal is premised on the following grounds of appeal as stated in the Appellant’s Memorandum of Appeal dated and filed on 6th March 2026, that; 1. The Respondent erred in law and in fact by deeming the Appellant as an agent of WIOCC Mauritius Limited (the principal), a related entity incorporated in Mauritius. The Respondent failed to consider the Appellant participated in residual group profits through the Profit Split Transfer Pricing (TP) method. 2. The Respondent erred in law and in fact by deeming the VAT refund application for the year 2021 for various tax periods i.e. January, March, April and June 2021 as time barred. The Respondent failed to consider that the Appellant had lodged the VAT refund claim within the stipulated statutory timelines. However, the Respondent repeatedly rejected the VAT refund applications requiring the Appellant to first address the VAT liabilities, which were erroneous, before reapplying for the VAT refund claims. The Respondent disregarded the fact that the VAT refund claim reapplications by the Appellant were because of the Respondent’s requests for the Appellant to address erroneous VAT liabilities on i-Tax that were beyond the Appellant’s control before the VAT refund claim could be processed. **THE APPELLANT’S CASE** 1. The Appellant’s case is premised on its: - 1. Statement of Facts dated and filed on 6th March 2026 together with the documentation attached thereto. 2. Written submissions dated and filed on June, 2026 2. The Appellant averred that its principal business activity is the provision of business support services to its non-resident parent entity, WIOCC MU. These business support services entail finance and accounting, internal audit, network support and administration, regulatory, client services management, human resource as well as technical support services. 3. It asserted that the business support services constitute export services within the scope of section 17(5)(a) of the VAT Act 2013, thereby resulting in excess input VAT attributable to zero-rated supplies. It stated further that it incurs operational expenses such as staff costs, office rent and office utility related expenses in its day-to day business support services to its non-resident parent company. 4. The Appellant averred that the office rent and office utility expenses it incurs and which VAT is charged by the various suppliers, are in the Appellant’s name and PIN and that it is issued with valid tax invoices addressed to it as the contracting party and recipient of those purchases. 5. It averred that it remains fully tax compliant and had no outstanding VAT liabilities since its incorporation in June 2017 until 16th November 2021 when irregular system generated entries and distortions were observed in its i-Tax VAT ledgers. It averred further that these irregular entries gave rise to erroneous VAT liabilities for the periods October 2017 and December 2017. 6. The Appellant asserted that these VAT liabilities are erroneous because they related to the October 2017 and December 2017 tax periods and had never appeared on the Appellant’s i-Tax ledger since its incorporation. It stated that these erroneous VAT liabilities only appeared on its i-Tax ledger on 16th November 2021, which is about after four years of active tax filing and remittance. It averred that the disputed VAT liabilities not only interfered with its VAT refund applications for the prior years but also hindered the automatic renewal of its Tax Compliance Certificates (TCC) 7. The Appellant stated that it formally wrote to the Respondent on 19th May 2025 seeking recommendations to facilitate continuation of the VAT refund application process. It further requested the Respondent to have all the VAT refund claims lodged on i-Tax notwithstanding the disputed ledger VAT liabilities and confirmed 2021 PAYE liability, with the understanding that any confirmed liabilities would thereafter be offset against the approved VAT refunds due to the Appellant. 8. The Appellant stated that the disputed historical VAT liabilities do not form the subject of this appeal and are referenced solely to explain procedural delays that affected the VAT refund claim processing. 9. The Appellant stated that the VAT refund claim applications were lodged within stipulated timelines since 2018 to 2024 when the excess credits first arose. It stated further that the Respondent rejected general VAT refund claims on subsequent dates based on the following; * + 1. The Respondent deemed the Appellant as an agent of the principal for the years 2018 to 2024 and therefore the Appellant was not eligible to claim the input VAT under Section 13(5) of the VAT Act 2013 and as per Tax Appeal No.74 of 2016 Cofftea ruling 2. The Respondent deemed the VAT refund application for 2021 as time barred and therefore the Appellant is not entitled to claim the refund. 3. The Appellant notes that the Respondent is inconsistent with the reasons for rejecting the VAT refund applications. Notably, the 2021 VAT refund claim was rejected on the grounds that it was time barred whilst VAT refund claims for the periods prior to 2021 were rejected on the grounds that the Appellant is an agent of the principal and therefore the Appellant was not eligible to claim the input VAT. 10. It was the Appellant’s contention that the Cofftea Ruling relied on by the Respondent in the refund decision was misplaced as it did not align with the Appellant’s business model. In addition, Cofftee was expressly appointed as a commission agent whose role was limited to procurement of goods on behalf of a foreign principal and who earned commission income rather than entrepreneurial returns. 11. The Appellant asserted that it participates in residual group profits remunerated through a Profit Split Method and not commission or cost plus, and that it bears economic responsibility and pays corporate income tax on the allocated profits. It therefore argued that a party that participates in residual profits could not in law be an agent as an agent does not participate in entrepreneurial returns neither does an agent share in business profits but earns facilitation remuneration through commissioner income. 12. The Appellant averred that in the case of **Morgan Air & Sea Freight Logistics Kenya Ltd vs the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (TAT),** the Tribunal held that a taxpayer cannot be treated as an agent merely because costs are reimbursed, where the taxpayer performs substantive services and incurs costs in the course of its own business. It stated that the Tribunal emphasized that agency must be proved thorough the legal and economic substance of the relationship and not informed from reimbursement arrangements alone. 13. The Appellant also cited the case **of Pollen Limited vs Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E003 of 2023)** where the Tribunal affirmed that a principal -agent relation must be demonstrated though legal authority and economic substance rather than informed from intra-group arrangements 14. The Appellant averred that the Respondent placed undue reliance on cost reimbursement mode while ignoring the economic substance of the Appellant’s operations stating that reimbursement of costs does not in itself create an Agency relationship for VAT purposes. 15. It was the Appellant’s averment that it incurred costs in its own name, received valid tax invoices and used those costs in making taxable supplies in the ordinary course of business, which is provision of business support services to WIOCC MU. It averred further that the Respondent ignored the Appellants substantive role in value creation as evidenced by the Profit Split TP method adopted by it. It averred that in the case of **Morgan Air** (Supra), the Tribunal held that VAT treatment must follow the economic reality of the transaction, not internal settlement mechanisms. 16. On the issue of excess input tax arising from zero-rated supplies, the Appellant averred that the Respondent erred in law by rejecting the VAT refund claims notwithstanding that the Appellant’s excess input VAT arose directly from export of taxable services thereby satisfying the requirements of Section 17(5) of the VAT Act. It averred that based on this it cited the case of **Commissioner of Domestic Taxes vs Panalpina Airflows Ltd (High Court Income Tax Appeal 5 of 2018)** where the Court held that services supplied for use or consumption outside Kenya qualify as exported services regardless of where the services are physically performed. 17. On the issue of time application of VAT refunds, the Appellant averred that the Respondent erred in law and in fact by deeming the VAT refund application repeatedly kept being rejected on the basis of the erroneous VAT liabilities which the Appellant later on agreed to offset against potential VAT refunds due despite the VAT liabilities being erroneous. 18. It asserted that the VAT refund applications were lodged within the statutory timelines and that subsequent re-applications were necessitated solely by earlier rejections by the Respondent. It asserted further that it repeatedly wrote to the Respondent requesting for VAT ledger correction. However, the Respondent failed to take this material fact into account, resulting in an unjust and erroneous rejection of the VAT refund claim. 19. The Appellant averred that the Respondent issued an Objection Decision dated 14th October 2020 and in the said decision, the Respondent allowed the Appellant to deduct input tax. Further that the only portion of input tax that was rejected by the Respondent through the said Objection Decision was due to lack of supporting documents. It reiterated that going by the said Objection Decision, the issue of any existing VAT liabilities did not arise, meaning that the VAT liabilities subsequently that arose on i-Tax were erroneous. It stated that the Respondent confirmed that the Appellant was eligible to deduct input tax in its capacity as a provider of business support services. 20. The Appellant distinguished the authority relied upon by the Respondent in **Cofftea Agencies Limited vs Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (TAT Appeal No.74 of 2016)** on the basis that, in that matter, the taxpayer had expressly been appointed as a commission agent and merely procured goods on behalf of the foreign principal, unlike the present case where the Appellant is a substantive service provider. 21. On the issue of excess input tax arising from zero rated supplies, the Appellant submitted that it satisfied the requirements of Section 17(5) of the VAT which permits taxpayers to seek VAT refund claims arising from excess input VAT attributable to exported taxable services. 22. It was the Appellant’s submission that its entitlement to VAT refunds has previously been acknowledged by the Respondent. It stated that for the 2018 VAT refund claim, the Respondent conducted a refund audit and later on following various engagements, issued a Objection Decision dated 14th October 2020, which objection decision allowed majority of input VAT on the basis that the majority of the supporting invoices complied with Section 17(5) of the VAT Act, and disallowed only a small portion that was unsupported. 23. The Appellant further submitted that despite the substantial conclusions of the refund verification process, payment of the confirmed amount was not affected due to disputed tax liabilities, and not on account of any ineligibility or rejections of the underlying VAT refund claim. 24. The Appellant submitted that the VAT refund claim applications relating to the year 2021 were lodged within the statutory timelines. However the applications were repeatedly rejected on the basis of erroneous VAT liabilities, which the Appellant sought an offset against confirmed VAT refund claims notwithstanding their erroneous nature. 25. It was the Appellant’s further submission that the original VAT refund claim applications were lodged within the prescribed statutory period and subsequent re-applications were necessitated solely by the Respondent’s earlier rejections. It stated that it also made several written requests to the Respondent seeking correction of the VAT ledger. 26. The Appellant submitted that no request for information in respect of the 2021 VAT refund claim No. KRA202596704773 was ever made by the Respondent contrary to the Respondent’s allegations and cannot form a valid basis for the rejection of the subsequent 2021 VAT refund claim No KRA 2025100702455. **THE APPELLANT’S PRAYERS** 1. The Appellant prayed for orders that: - 1. The Respondent’s VAT claim rejection orders effected on 26th January, 2026,3rd February 2026, 9th February 2026 and 16th February 2026 for the various VAT periods from the years 2018 to 2024 be hereby annulled and set aside in its entirety 2. The Appellant has sufficiently supported and evidenced that it is an independent trading entity and not an agent of the principal. 3. The Appeal be allowed; and 4. Any other remedies that the Honourable Tribunal deems just and reasonable. **THE RESPONDENT’S CASE** 1. The Respondent’s case is premised or its: - 1. Statement of Facts dated 2nd April 2026 and filed on 14th April 2026 together with the documentation attached thereto. 2. Written submissions dated 2nd April 2026 and filed on 8th June 2026. 2. The Respondent averred that the Appellant lodged VAT refund claims pursuant to Section 17(5) of the Value Added Tax Act 2013. The refund claim Acknowledgement KRA 202119476883 was for the period January 2021 to June 2021 which was lodged on 29th September 2021 within the prescribed timelines. It however stated that the claim was rejected due to a pending debt status report at the Respondents Tax Service office. 3. The issue was later resolved and the Appellant submitted a new application under ACK No KRA202596704773 on 8th September 2025. It stated that it also rejected this application on the grounds that the Appellant failed to provide the requisite supporting documentation within the stipulated timelines according to Section 47(5) of TPA 2015 through an amendment of Finance Act 2022. 4. The Respondent averred that a further application under ACK No. 2025100702455 was later submitted but was rejected on the basis that the Appellant had not furnished the Respondent will the required documentation in the prior application thereby rendering the claim time-barred 5. The Respondent stated that the refund applications for the periods 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023 and 2024 under ACK Nos KRA202599202586, KRA202599202510, KRA202599202385, KRA202599202255 and KRA202599202167 were all rejected on account of the principal-agent relationship. 6. The Respondent asserted that it issued acknowledgement receipts orders on diverse dates on 27th October, 2025 8th September 2025 and 1st September, 2025. It then issued rejection orders on 26th January, 2026, 16th February, 2026 and 9th February, 2026 rejecting the VAT refund claim of Kshs 38,546,110.00. 7. The Respondent asserted that the Appellant is a wholly owned subsidiary of West Indian Ocean Cable Company Limited (WIOCC Mauritius) incorporated in Kenya on 13th June 2017. It stated that under the terms of the intercompany agreement, the Appellant acted strictly as an agent of the principal. It therefore asserted that as a consequence, all payments made by the Appellant were on behalf of and for the benefit of the principal. It stated that it was on this basis that it was determined that the Appellant did not bear the economic burden of the expenses giving rise to the input VAT claimed, and therefore did not qualify for input VAT deductions. 8. The Respondent asserted that in accordance with Section 13(5) of the VAT Act, such reimbursements are excluded from the taxable value. It asserted further that this was according to the Appellant’s Intercompany Agreement and Schedule 2-Service Fees in the Transfer Pricing documentation. 9. The Respondent stated that the Appellant was fully reimbursed by the principal for 100% of all costs incurred in the course of its operations as stipulated in schedule 2-service fees of Transfer Pricing document. It therefore averred that the Appellant did not bear the economic burden of these expenses and was therefore not eligible to claim input VAT on the same. 10. In rejecting the VAT refund application, the Respondent relied on the Tribunals ruling in the case of **Tax Appeal No 74 of 2016 Cofftea Agencies Limited vs Commissioner, Domestic Taxes Department** and High Court in the case of **Commissioner of Domestic Services vs Dutch Flower Group Kenya (2021) KEAC23**. 11. The Respondent averred that the Appellant’s 2021 refund claim was time barred since it was lodged outside 12 months as amended by the Finance Act 2022. It averred further that the Appellant lodged its refund claim for the period 2021 on 8th September 2025 and the claim for 2022 on 27th October 2025. It stated therefore that it rejected the claims because they contravened the provisions of 17(5) (d) as amended by the Finance Act , 2022 which required the Appellant to lodge the claims with 12 months 12. The Respondent asserted that the Appellant’s claims were lodged in the year 2025 which contravenes the provision of Section17(5)(d) of the VAT Act 2013 as amended by the Finance Act 2025.It therefore argued that it correctly exercised its judgement and was justified in rejecting the refund claims since they were in contravention of the law. 13. In its written submissions, the Respondent submitted in two issues 1. **Whether the Respondent erred in disallowing the refund claim since it contravened Section 13(5) of the VAT Act.** 14. The Respondent reiterated that in accordance with Section 13(5) of the VAT Act, such reimbursements are excluded from taxable value which was affirmed in the Appellant’s intercompany Argument and Schedule 2-service fees in the Transfer Pricing documentation. 15. The Respondent reiterated further that the Appellant is fully reimbursed by the principal for 100% of all costs incurred in the course of its operators, as such, it does not bear the economic burden of these expenses and is therefore not eligible to claim input VAT on the same. 16. It submitted that under the terms of the intercompany agreement, the Appellant acted strictly as an agent of the principal, hence all payments made by the Appellant were on behalf of and for the benefit of the principal. It therefore argued that the Appellant does not bear the economic burden of the expenses giving rise to the input VAT claimed and therefore does not qualify for input VAT deduction. 17. To buttress its argument, the Respondent relied on the case of **Commissioner of Domestic Services vs Dutch Flower Group Kenya (2021) KEHC 23**, where the High Court observed at paragraphs 9 of its judgement. *“It is clear what creates an agency relationship is the degree of control that the principal retains in what the agent does on its behalf. In this regard, where parties in a relationship envisage and agree that one will retain some control over another in the latter’s conduct or execution of some duty, an agency relationship is created. It matters not what the parties call that relationship. It is the legal effect that arise from their relationship that will count”* 1. The Respondent further relied on the **Dutch Flower** case (Supra) where the High Court observed at Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of its judgement; the court held as follows; *“….I have quoted the same agreement in extenso so as to capture the full meaning and tenor thereof. It is clear from the aforesaid clause on Prices and payment that FRE exercises a considerable degree of control over the respondent on the issue of costs. That in providing the services contracted, both FRE and the respondent agree at the beginning of the year on a budget. After agreeing on the annual budget, the respondent raises invoices on a provisional basis based on the pre-determined budget and expense with FRE. The invoice contains the actual cost of the service plus a 5% markup. The cost of the service has also been pre-determined in the agreement itself. The respondent cannot freely incur any cost that is neither set out in the said agreement nor not approved by FRE. The courts conclusion is that notwithstanding the wording of the agreement, the net effect is that the Respondent is an agent of FRE.A clear agency relationship is created by the said agreement as FRE retains control over the respondent in the nature of the business the two are engaged on”* 1. The Respondent submitted that the parent company (WIOCC Mauritius) shall reimburse WIOCC Kenya 100% of all the costs incurred in running the business every year, including 100% of any direct tax implications arising from the provisions of services **b) Whether the Appellant Refund claim was lodged within 12 months as amended by the Finance Act 2022** 1. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant’s refund claim was time- barred since it was lodged outside 12 months as amended by the Finance Act 2022. It reiterated that the Appellant lodged its refund for the period 2021 on 8th September 2025 and for 2022 on 27th October 2025. It stated that it rejected the claims because they contravened the provisions of 17(5)(d) as amended by the Finance Act 2022 which required the Appellant to lodge the claims with 12 months. 2. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant’s claims were lodged in the year 2025, which contravenes the provision of Section 17(5) (d) of the VAT Act 2013 as amended by the Finance Act 2025. It asserted that Tax statutes are supposed to be interpreted strictly leaving no room for intendment. It argued that the law having been amended to provide for 12 months, was something the Respondent could not ignore. 3. The Respondent relied on the case **Commissioner of Domestic Taxes vs Airtel Networks Kenya Limited (Income Tax Appeal E062 at 2022(2023) KEHC 25059 (KLR)** where the High Court held that: - “*On interpretation of tax statutes, the courts have held that the same should be given strict interpretation with no room for intendment*” **THE RESPONDENT’S PRAYERS** 1. The Respondent prayed that the Tribunal: - 1. Dismisses the appeal in its entirety. 2. Upholds the refund rejection orders. 3. Orders the Appellant to pay the costs of the appeal. **ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION** 1. The Tribunal has considered the parties pleadings, documentation and submissions, and is of the view that this appeal raises three issues for determination 1. **Whether the Appellant was an agent of its Parent Entity WIOCC Mauritius** 2. **Whether the Respondent was justified in rejecting the Appellants input VAT claims** 3. **Whether the VAT refund claim for 2021 was time barred** **ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS** 1. Having established the three issues for determination, the Tribunal proceeds to analyse them as hereinunder 1. **Whether the Appellant was an agent of its Parent Entity WIOCC Mauritius** 2. The Respondent had submitted that as per the terms of the intercompany agreement, the Appellant acted strictly as an agent of the principal and that all payments made by the Appellant were on behalf of and for the benefit of the principals 3. The Appellant on its part had submitted that it was a wholly owned -subsidiary and that as per the Management Service Agreement, it was an independent contractor. 4. In order to better understand the relationship between the Appellant and WIOCC Mauritius, the Tribunal has perused through the Management Service Agreement and in particular, the scope of appointment where at paragraph 3.2 the agreement states as follows; *“In rendering the services to WIOCC MU and its subsidiaries in terms of this Agreement, WIOCC KE shall at all times act as an independent contractor and nothing contained or implied in this Agreement shall constitute a principal-agent relationship or a partnership between the parties, nor shall it authorize either Party to incur any liability whatsoever on behalf of the other, save to the extent expressly provided for in this Agreement.”* 1. The Black ‘s Law Dictionary 10th Edition defines what an agency is: “*Agency is a relationship that arises when one person(principal) manifests assent to another (an agent) that the agent will act on the principal’s behalf, to the principal’s control and the agent manifests assent or otherwise consents to do so”* 1. The Tribunal is further guided by the definition of an agent as stated in the Black’s Law Dictionary which defines on Agent as a person authorized by another (Principal) to act for or in place of him. The same dictionary defines principal as someone who authorizes another to act in their place. 2. A reading of paragraph 3.2 of the Management Service Agreement, explicitly state that the Appellant (WIOCC KE) shall at all times act as an independent contractor and that nothing contained or implied in the Agreement shall constitute a principal agent relationship. It is the Tribunal’s considered view that WIOCC MU does not exercise control over the Appellant (WIOCC KE) as a wholly owned subsidiary of WIOCC MU. 3. The Tribunal relies on the **Bow Stead & Reynolds** on Agency 21st Edition which expounds on the word agency. It states as follows: - *“The word “agency” to a common law refers in general to a branch of the law under which one person, the agent , may directly affect the legal relations of another person ,the principal, as regards yet another person’s, called third parties, by which the agent is said to have the principals authority to perform on his behalf and which when done are in some respects treated as the principals acts .The term agency is best used…. to connote an authority or capacity to create legal relation between a person occupying the position of principal and third parties. Usually, the legal relationship so created will be contractual in nature”* 1. It is therefore clear from the Agreement that the Appellant does not act as an agent of WIOCC MU and that it incurs expenses and costs in its name, 2. In view of the foregoing the Tribunal finds that the Appellant was not an agent of its parent Entity WIOCC Mauritius **b) Whether the Respondent was justified in rejecting the Appellant’s input VAT claims.** 1. The Respondent rejected the Appellant’s Input VAT refund claims for the years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022,2023 and 2024 for the reason that there existed a principal -agent relationship and that the Appellant as an agent of WIOCC Mauritius was not entitled to deduct input VAT on expenses incurred. 2. As established in the Management Service Agreement, the Appellant acted as an independent contractor and did not act on behalf of the Principal, and from the finding in the first issue, the Appellant is not an agent as it incurs costs in its own name which costs it uses to make taxable income. 3. The Tribunal notes that an Objection Decision issued by the Respondent on 14th October 2020, which the Tribunal has sighted, the Respondent allowed some input VAT. The Objection Decision stated in part: *“Invoices for an amount of Kshs 14,857,609.2 with VAT input of Kshs 2,377,217.47, were found to meet the requirements for deduction of input tax under section 17 of the value added Tax Act, 2013.”* 1. From the wording of the above paragraph, the Respondent allowed some of the Appellant’s claim implying that indeed the Appellant is not an agent of any principal. The Respondent cannot therefore do an about turn and disallow the expenses citing that the Appellant acts on behalf of the WIOCC MU and this it is usually reimburse at 100% of the expense incurred. 2. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent was not justified in rejecting the Appellant’s input VAT refund claim. **c)Whether the VAT refund claim for 2021 was time-barred** 1. The Respondent had submitted that the Appellant lodged its refund claim for the period 2021 on 8th September, 2025 which contravened Section 17(5)(d) of the VAT Act 2013 as amended by the Finance Act 2022 2. The Respondent had stated that the refund claim for 2021 was lodged on 26th September 2021 but was rejected due to a pending debt status and that upon resolution of the issue a new application was done on 8th September 2025. This one was also rejected by the Respondent with reason that the Appellant failed to provide the requisite supporting documentation within the stipulated timelines according to Section 47(5) of the TPA.A further application was submitted by the Appellant but was rejected on the basis that the Appellant had not furnished the Respondent with the required documentation in the prior application, therefore the application was rendered time-barred 3. It is worth noting that the refund application was first lodged within the statutory timelines which the Respondent acknowledged but was rejected due to a pending debt dispute that was eventually resolved and the Appellant was asked to relodge the application which was again rejected. 4. It is the Tribunals considered view that the application was first lodged within the statutory timelines and that the first time it was rejected was not due to the Appellant’s mistake but errors in the Respondent’s system. It would therefore be unjust to deny the Appellant the opportunity for its application to be considered on merit as the audit trail of the application for the period 2021 can be traced in the Respondent’s system. 5. Flowing from the above analysis, the Tribunal finds that the VAT refund application for the period 2021 was not time-barred **FINAL DECISION** 1. The upshot of the foregoing is that the Appeal is meritorious and the Tribunal proceeds to issue the following orders. 1. The Appeal be and is hereby allowed 2. The Respondent’s Rejection Orders for the periods 2018,2019,2020, 2021, 2022,2023 and 2024 be and hereby set aside 3. Each part to bear its own costs 2. Orders accordingly **DATED and DELIVERED** at **NAIROBI** this 21st day of August 2026 ................................................................ **DR, ERICK KOMOLO** **CHAIRMAN** **……………………………. ……..............……………..** **ABDULLAHI M. DIRIYE CYNTHIA MAYAKA** **MEMBER MEMBER**