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.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The applicant satisfied the requirements for stay of execution by demonstrating potential irreparable loss and readiness to provide security for the unpaid tax amount. The Court found the applicant's declaration and supporting affidavit sufficient to meet the legal threshold under Rule 11(5).
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed Q-Bar Limited’s tax appeal, holding the memorandum raised only factual issues and no questions of law under section 25(2) of the TRAA.
The respondent's demand for production of records generated between 2009 and 2013 was unlawful as it violated the five-year statutory retention period under section 25(2) of the VAT Act; the appellant was not obliged to produce records beyond this period absent a written request from the Commissioner. For records within the statutory period (2014-2016), the appellant bore the burden of proof and failed to discharge it, justifying the respondent's adjusted assessment. The Tribunal was correct in seeking interpretive guidance from section 80 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal erred in condonin…
Source excerpt
The Board and Tribunal have no jurisdiction to entertain appeals arising from the respondent's refusal or omission to grant waiver of payment of tax deposit of one third of the assessed tax, as such matters do not constitute objection decisions under section 16(1) of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act. The doctrine of stare decisis requires adherence to prior decisions (Pan African I and II) which have settled this jurisdictional limitation.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to prove an agency relationship with UWA; its services were performed in Tanzania and did not qualify for zero-rating under the VAT Act; interest was properly imposed as VAT liability was established and respondent's prior opinion was not binding or applicable to the appellant.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal granted Vodacom extension of time to seek revision, holding the delay was adequately explained and not inordinate.
The applicant has fully complied with Rule 11(6) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, and demonstrated risk of substantial loss if execution proceeds. No prejudice will be caused to the respondent as they will be heard inter partes. Therefore, an ex parte stay of execution is warranted.
Source excerpt
The Board and Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's appeals relating to tax assessment and stamp duty, as statutory procedures for objection and adjudication were not followed. The proceedings and judgments of the Board and Tribunal were a nullity, and the Court invoked revisional jurisdiction to nullify them and direct compliance with statutory procedures.
Source excerpt
The suit is a tax/revenue-related dispute falling under the jurisdiction of the Tax Revenue Appeals Board; the High Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and cannot entertain the case.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed the suit after the plaintiff defaulted on preliminary objections, holding that tax assessment disputes lie outside its jurisdiction.
Explore more
