bg international ltd vs commissioner general tra 2020 tzca 286 11 june 2020

bg international ltd vs commissioner general tra 2020 tzca 286 11 june 2020

The applicant failed to follow the required procedure by not initially applying to the Tribunal for extension of time to request omitted documents before seeking enlargement of time from the Court. Reliance on Rule 90(1) was justified, and the applicant's request to the Board was ineffectual and contrary to procedure. No grounds warrant reversal of the single Justice's decision.

Citation
bg international ltd vs commissioner general tra 2020 tzca 286 11 june 2020
Parties
Applicant: BG International Limited; Respondent: Commissioner General (TRA)
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Reference / Ruling on Reference From Single Justice's Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Omitted Documents in Appeal, Court of Appeal Rules, Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal Procedure
Source Language
English
Tax Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Omitted Documents in Appeal Court of Appeal Rules Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BG International Limited

Applicant

Commissioner General (TRA)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Reference / Ruling on Reference From Single Justice's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to extension of time to include omitted documents in the record of appeal
  2. 2 Whether the applicant followed proper procedure in requesting documents from the Board instead of the Tribunal
  3. 3 Whether Rule 90(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules applies to requests made to the Secretary of the Tax Revenue Appeals Board

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to follow the required procedure by not initially applying to the Tribunal for extension of time to request omitted documents before seeking enlargement of time from the Court. Reliance on Rule 90(1) was justified, and the applicant's request to the Board was ineffectual and contrary to procedure. No grounds warrant reversal of the single Justice's decision.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.