Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

The Tax Appeals Tribunal of Uganda (TAT) was established by an Act of Parliament in 1997. By enhancing this Act, parliament was fulfilling the requirement in Article 152 (3) of the Constitution 1995. Tax Appeals Tribunal opened its doors to the public in May 1999. The duty of Tax Appeals Tribunal of Uganda is to settle Tax Disputes between tax payers and the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA)

Physical address

NIC Building, 7/8th Floor

Visit website

https://www.tat.go.ug/

1 judgment

Advanced search

All years

All months

July

Filters

Sort by:

1 judgment

Citation	Judgment date
July 2009
Tumusiime v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 31 of 2007) [2009] UGTAT 1 (1 July 2009) Imported rice is exempt only if unprocessed under the 5% value‑add test; practice notes do not bind taxpayers. Tax — VAT: distinction between exempt, zero-rated and standard-rated supplies; "unprocessed" defined by paragraph 3 (<=5% value-add) of Second Schedule; imported rice exempt only if unprocessed; zero-rating limited to goods grown/milled/produced in Uganda; Commissioner-General practice notes (s.79) bind Commissioner but not taxpayers and cannot amend statute or be applied retrospectively where incorrect; burden of proof on taxpayer to show processing exceeds 5%; SAM requires prior written authorisation.	1 July 2009

Citation

Judgment date

July 2009

Tumusiime v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 31 of 2007) [2009] UGTAT 1 (1 July 2009)

Imported rice is exempt only if unprocessed under the 5% value‑add test; practice notes do not bind taxpayers.

Tax — VAT: distinction between exempt, zero-rated and standard-rated supplies; "unprocessed" defined by paragraph 3 (<=5% value-add) of Second Schedule; imported rice exempt only if unprocessed; zero-rating limited to goods grown/milled/produced in Uganda; Commissioner-General practice notes (s.79) bind Commissioner but not taxpayers and cannot amend statute or be applied retrospectively where incorrect; burden of proof on taxpayer to show processing exceeds 5%; SAM requires prior written authorisation.

1 July 2009