Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Rwanda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwatesheje agaciro umusoro kuri 41.971.000 Frw, rwemeza ko wari washatsewa umusoro mbere; rwemeza ariko ko 450.114.953 Frw na 996.101.280 Frw bigomba gusoreshwa.
The Court of Appeal held that Africana Buffalo Ltd’s review application based on new evidence was inadmissible because the cited decision was not new evidence under the law.
The court found that the documents submitted by Habimana were not new evidence within the meaning of the law, as they existed and could have been obtained and presented during the original proceedings. Furthermore, the documents were not decisive and would not have changed the outcome of the prior judgment. Therefore, the application for revision was inadmissible.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that transport used as an accessory to BRALIRWA distribution is not VAT-exempt and reinstated the VAT assessment against SRDS Ltd.
A constitutional petition challenging a law or provision must concern a law that is currently in force and being applied; if the law has been repealed and is no longer operative, the petition is inadmissible and cannot be entertained by the Supreme Court.
Source excerpt
The Court held that the 2011 tax assessment was not time-barred because the limitation period was five years from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2016, and the rectification notice was served before expiry. The issuance of a rectification notice replacing a prior assessment did not constitute an unlawful second audit. RRA was entitled to costs and attorney fees as the prevailing party.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Rwanda Revenue Authority met the 60-day deadline because the response was delivered to the post office within time, not when received by the taxpayer.
The Supreme Court held that the Customs Commissioner had authority under Section 135 of the EACCMA to demand payment of the tax shortfall resulting from an incorrect customs declaration due to mistake, without the need for criminal prosecution under Section 203, as the respondent's conduct did not amount to use of false or fraudulent documents but rather a mistaken declaration. The respondent was therefore liable to pay the assessed tax and damages.
Source excerpt
A taxpayer who opts for amicable settlement must file a claim to court within 30 days from the date of notification that amicable settlement is not possible. TELE 10 Rwanda Ltd filed its claim after this period, rendering the claim inadmissible.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that tax equity did not require comparing the taxpayer with differently situated traders, and restored the higher tax assessment.
Explore more
