Judgment summary
This is a ruling of the Tax Appeals Tribunal on a Notice of Motion by Horizons Group Limited seeking leave to file an appeal out of time against an Objection Decision relating to an additional VAT assessment.
The Applicant argued that it only received the Respondent's reasoned Objection Decision, dated 18th October 2022, on 16th July 2026, and that the decision bore an incorrect PIN. The Respondent opposed the application, contending that the delay of approximately 44 months had not been explained and that a Confirmation Assessment Notice, issued under the Applicant's correct PIN, had recorded the objection as "Fully Reject".
The Tribunal considered the chronology of events, the applicable statutory provision, and prior authority, and found that the Applicant had not met the threshold for an extension of time. The application was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.
Background
The Applicant lodged an objection on 8th September 2022 against an additional VAT assessment of Kshs. 901,328.92 (paragraph 2).
The Respondent issued an Objection Decision dated 18th October 2022 (paragraph 2). The Applicant states it did not receive this decision until 16th July 2026, and filed the present application eighteen days later, on 3rd August 2026 (paragraph 2, paragraph 3).
The Applicant contends that the Objection Decision bore an incorrect PIN, P051313484D, whereas its correct PIN is P051243765E, and that this discrepancy raises doubt as to how the decision was routed and communicated (paragraph 3).
The application was supported by the Affidavit of Bancy Ndiang'ui, sworn on 3rd August 2026 (paragraph 1), and opposed by the Replying Affidavit of Cleopa Ochiel, sworn on 13th August 2026 (paragraph 4). The Respondent relied on a Confirmation Assessment Notice dated 9th November 2022, generated under the Applicant's correct PIN, recording the objection outcome as "Fully Reject" (paragraph 5). The Applicant filed consolidated Written Submissions dated 17th August 2026 (paragraph 6).
Core dispute
The dispute concerns whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion under Section 13 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act (Cap. 469A) to extend time for filing an appeal, notwithstanding a delay of approximately 44 months between the Objection Decision and the application.
The Applicant argued that the statutory thirty-day appeal period only commenced when it actually received the reasoned Objection Decision in July 2026, and that a PIN discrepancy on that decision cast doubt on how and whether it had been properly served.
The Respondent argued that the Objection Decision had been issued and effected on iTax in 2022, that the Applicant continued to file monthly VAT returns throughout, and that a Confirmation Assessment Notice generated under the Applicant's correct PIN had already recorded the objection as fully rejected.
Court findings
The Tribunal applied Section 13(3) and (4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, which permits an extension of time owing to absence from Kenya, sickness, or other reasonable cause (paragraph 8). It also applied the principles from Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi, Civil Application Nai. No. 251 of 1997, concerning the length of delay, reasons for delay, chances of success, and prejudice to the respondent (paragraph 9).
The Tribunal reviewed the chronology: the VAT assessment was raised on 29th August 2022 under the Applicant's correct PIN, the objection was lodged on 8th September 2022 under the correct PIN, and the Objection Decision of 18th October 2022 bore an incorrect PIN, which the Respondent described as a typographical error (paragraph 10).
The Tribunal found the Confirmation Assessment Notice of 9th November 2022, generated under the Applicant's correct PIN and recording the objection as "Fully Reject", to be material, since it showed the Applicant's tax account contained an indication of the outcome of its objection (paragraph 12). Both the Objection Decision and the Confirmation Assessment Notice bore the correct name and address of the Applicant, so the PIN error was found not to have affected service (paragraph 12).
The Tribunal held that the Applicant, having continued to file monthly VAT returns through iTax, ought reasonably to have inquired about the status of its objection once the rejection was reflected on its account, and found no evidence that it did so before July 2026 (paragraphs 13 and 14). The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant acted promptly after its asserted date of receipt in July 2026, but found this did not explain the preceding inaction (paragraph 16).
The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in Tana Quick Traders Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2025] ETAT 425 (KLR), where a taxpayer's failure to explain inaction regarding confirmation assessments transmitted through iTax was found to constitute an unreasonable cause for delay (paragraph 17), and found the present case materially similar (paragraph 18).
Outcome
The Tribunal found that the Applicant had failed to satisfactorily explain its delay and had not met the threshold under Section 13(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act for the exercise of its discretion to extend time (paragraphs 19 and 20).
The Application was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs (paragraph 21).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Applicant's asserted late receipt of the Objection Decision, on 16th July 2026, justified an extension of time to appeal.
- Whether the incorrect PIN on the Objection Decision affected valid service of that decision.
- Whether the Confirmation Assessment Notice, issued under the Applicant's correct PIN and recording the objection as 'Fully Reject', put the Applicant on notice of the outcome.
- Whether the delay of approximately 44 months between the Objection Decision and the application was reasonably explained.
- The application of Section 13 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act and the Leo Sila Mutiso principles to the request for extension of time.