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
Transport services provided by SRDS Ltd in the course of distributing BRALIRWA’s products are accessory to the principal activity of distribution, which is not VAT exempt. Therefore, such transport services are not VAT exempt, regardless of licensing. Only transport services provided as a principal activity are VAT exempt under the law. The Court of Appeal’s contrary interpretation is overruled.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the decision in RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC could not be considered a binding precedent because the applicant failed to show that it represented a consistent line of authority or was relied upon in multiple cases. Furthermore, subsequent decisions by the same court contradicted the challenged position, indicating no settled precedent. Therefore, there was no legal basis to reverse the position under the stare decisis doctrine, and the application was dismissed.
Source excerpt
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.
The Supreme Court held that the Commercial High Court decision did not establish a settled precedent on exported services, so the Bar Association’s request lacked merit.
The Supreme Court held that there was no settled Commercial High Court position to reverse on VAT treatment of exported services, so the Bar Association’s request failed.
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 Supreme Court held that the petition for authentic interpretation did not meet the admissibility requirements because the applicant failed to demonstrate a genuine legal dispute or contradictory decisions at the final instance. The existence of a final decision by the Commercial High Court on the interpretation of 'exported services' under the VAT law precluded the need for authentic interpretation. The Court found that ordinary principles of statutory interpretation and relevant international agreements already provide sufficient guidance, and that divergent administrative practice alone…
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
Explore more
