Judgment summary
The Tribunal considered an appeal by Twin Craft Electrical Services Limited against additional VAT assessments raised by the Kenya Revenue Authority following a returns review for the 2018 to 2023 period.
The Appellant had lodged a late objection which the Respondent rejected, and the Appellant then filed a Notice of Appeal. The Tribunal found that the Notice of Appeal was filed outside the statutory thirty-day period under Section 13(1) of the TAT Act and Section 51(12) of the TPA, and without leave under Section 13(3) and (4) of the TAT Act.
The Tribunal held that the Appeal was not properly before it for want of jurisdiction and struck it out, with each party bearing its own costs.
Background
The Appellant is a private limited company involved in electrical services and a registered taxpayer. The Respondent is the Kenya Revenue Authority, established under the Kenya Revenue Authority Act, CAP 469, mandated to assess, collect and account for tax revenues.
Following a returns review for the 2018 to 2023 period, the Respondent raised additional VAT assessments on 15th December 2023, amounting to Ksh 18,130,068.74 (para 9). The Appellant objected via iTax on 8th April 2024.
The Respondent issued a late objection rejection notice confirming the assessments (dated 29th May 2025 at para 5, though also referred to as 29th May 2024 elsewhere in the judgment). The Appellant then filed its Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 28th October 2025.
Core dispute
The Appellant argued that it was not given an opportunity to be heard before the additional VAT assessments were made, that supporting documents were available, that no expenses were allowed, that no reasons were given for the decision, and that the matter was suitable for ADR reconciliation. It sought to have the assessments set aside as arbitrary and unjust.
The Respondent contended that the additional VAT assessments arose from variances between the Appellant's declared income in its VAT and income tax returns for 2018 to 2023, and that these were validly raised under Sections 24(2) and 31 of the TPA. The Respondent further argued that the Appellant's late objection was properly rejected because the Appellant failed to provide supporting documentation or a valid nexus between the reasons advanced and the delay, as required under Section 51(6) and (7) of the TPA, and that the burden of proof under Section 56(1) of the TPA lay with the Appellant.
Court findings
The Tribunal identified two issues for determination: whether the Appeal was properly before it, and whether the Appellant discharged its burden of proof.
On the first issue, the Tribunal noted the timeline: the additional VAT assessments were raised on 15th December 2023, the objection was lodged on 8th April 2024, the Respondent's rejection decision followed, and the Notice of Appeal was filed on 28th October 2025. The Tribunal held that this fell outside the thirty-day period required under Section 13(1) of the TAT Act and Section 51(12) of the TPA, and that the Appeal was lodged without leave as required under Section 13(3) and (4) of the TAT Act.
The Tribunal relied on Felister Wakonyo Waruhiu vs. Joseph Wachira Mwangi, Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2013, and Owners of Motor Vessel "Lilian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd, both cited in the judgment, to hold that jurisdictional timelines cannot be cured and that a court or tribunal must down its tools where it lacks jurisdiction.
Having found that the Appeal was not properly before it, the Tribunal held that the second issue, whether the Appellant discharged its burden of proof, was rendered moot.
Outcome
The Tribunal ordered that the Appeal be struck out and that each party bear its own costs.
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Appeal was properly before the Tribunal given the timelines for filing the Notice of Appeal under Section 13(1) of the TAT Act and Section 51(12) of the TPA.
- Whether the Appellant discharged its burden of proof under Section 56(1) of the TPA regarding the additional VAT assessments (this issue was rendered moot).