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 Court of Appeal set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and remitted the case because the Tribunal had not determined the appeal to finality.
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 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 of Tanzania held that Panafrican Energy’s transactions under the Operatorship Agreement were taxable supplies, and it dismissed the VAT appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that VAT liability on land sold with buildings was not clearly imposed by the VAT Act and dismissed the appeal with costs.
The Court of Appeal upheld VAT liability on excess fuel invoiced by Geita Gold Mining Ltd, holding that VAT shown on the invoice was recoverable under the VAT Act.
An appeal that is re-lodged after withdrawal must comply afresh with all mandatory procedural requirements, including timely application for copies of proceedings under Rule 90(1). Failure to do so renders the appeal time barred and improperly before the Court.
Source excerpt
The omission to include vital documents admitted in evidence in the record of appeal violates mandatory procedural rules, rendering the appeal incompetent.
Source excerpt
The appeal was struck out as incompetent because the record of appeal was incomplete, lacking several exhibits admitted in evidence, in violation of mandatory procedural rules.
Source excerpt
The dispute arose from the exercise of powers under the Value Added Tax Act, a revenue law administered by the Tanzania Revenue Authority. The Tax Revenue Appeals Board has exclusive original jurisdiction over such disputes. The High Court's jurisdiction was expressly barred. The proceedings and judgment of the High Court are nullities.
Source excerpt
Explore more
