diamond trust bank tanzania limited vspuma energy tanzania limited 2021 tzhccomd 3425 17 may 2021

diamond trust bank tanzania limited vspuma energy tanzania limited 2021 tzhccomd 3425 17 may 2021

Instruction fees were wrongly taxed off by the Taxing Officer based on the requirement for EFD receipts under the Tax Administration Act, 2015, which was not applicable to a suit filed before the Act and Order came into force. The applicable law was the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules, 1991, which did not require receipts. The applicant is entitled to 3% of the claimed amount as instruction fees, with VAT.

Citation
diamond trust bank tanzania limited vspuma energy tanzania limited 2021 tzhccomd 3425 17 may 2021
Parties
Applicant/decree Holder: Diamond Trust Bank Tanzania Limited; Respondent/judgement Debtor: Puma Energy Tanzania Limited
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
17 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Reference / Ruling
Outcome
reference allowed
Legal Topics
Instruction Fees, Retrospective Application of Law, Requirement of Receipts in Taxation Proceedings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Instruction Fees Retrospective Application of Law Requirement of Receipts in Taxation Proceedings

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diamond Trust Bank Tanzania Limited

Applicant/decree Holder

Puma Energy Tanzania Limited

Respondent/judgement Debtor

Procedural Posture

Commercial Reference / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether instruction fees taxed off by the Taxing Officer were contrary to the applicable law
  2. 2 Whether EFD receipts were required for instruction fees in taxation proceedings for a suit filed before the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2015 and Tax Administration Act, 2015 came into force

Ratio Decidendi

Instruction fees were wrongly taxed off by the Taxing Officer based on the requirement for EFD receipts under the Tax Administration Act, 2015, which was not applicable to a suit filed before the Act and Order came into force. The applicable law was the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules, 1991, which did not require receipts. The applicant is entitled to 3% of the claimed amount as instruction fees, with VAT.

Court Disposition

reference allowed

Orders

  • Applicant awarded instruction fees at 3% of TZS 2,448,110,160, totaling TZS 73,443,304, with VAT.
  • No order as to costs.