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
Transport services provided by SRDS Ltd in the course of distributing BRALIRWA products do not qualify as VAT-exempt professional transport under Rwandan law. The transport was ancillary to the principal activity of distribution, which is not VAT-exempt. Therefore, VAT was lawfully assessed on these services.
Source excerpt
A Court of Appeal precedents collection summarizing criminal, civil, tax, and procedure rulings from July-August 2022, including sentencing, evidence, contracts, and appeal rules.
The Court of Appeal held that MAFAM Ltd was exempt from VAT on transportation services before 15/10/2016, but VAT imposed after that date was lawful absent a RURA license.
Rice processed by removing the outer husk does not become a new kind of food under Article 2(3) of Law No. 37/2012; both a change in kind and increase in value are required for VAT liability on processed foods. The process performed by Rwamagana Rice Ltd does not meet these cumulative criteria. Therefore, the VAT assessed by RRA was not lawfully imposed.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that SODAR Ltd’s rice was not “processed food” for VAT purposes because it did not become a new type of food, so RRA’s appeal failed.
The rice processed and sold by SODAR Ltd, although cleaned and hulled, does not constitute a new type of food but remains rice. Both statutory and expert evidence require that, for VAT to apply, the food must be transformed into a new type and its value increased. Since only value increased but the type did not change, the rice remains VAT-exempt. The High Commercial Court correctly interpreted the law and evidence.
Source excerpt
Rice that is hulled and cleaned, even by machine, without chemical transformation or mixing, does not become a new type of food for VAT purposes. Therefore, the VAT assessment against GIKONKO RICE Ltd was unlawful and must be set aside.
Source excerpt
The Commercial High Court partially allowed RRA’s appeal, removing VAT on exempt flour but upholding VAT assessed on undeclared sugar sales.
The Supreme Court upheld a tax assessment against New Africa Gaming, holding that its lottery activities were taxable and that RRA could rely on available records.
The Commercial High Court held that VAT exemption applied to the flour, but upheld VAT on 1,747 bags of sugar because Kawaida Ltd. failed to rebut the tax authority’s evidence.
Explore more
