DAR ES SALAAM: IN a landmark ruling that significantly strengthens taxpayer rights, the Court of Appeal has declared that the Commissioner General (CG) of the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) cannot sit on tax waiver applications indefinitely.
The judgment, delivered early this month in Civil Appeal No. 145 of 2022 (Wilbert Basilius Kapinga vs Commissioner General, TRA), clarifies that a failure by the CG to determine a waiver request within statutory timelines constitutes an ‘appealable omission’.
The court ruled in favour of Wilbert Basilius Kapinga in his case against the Commissioner General, quashing concurrent decisions of the Tax Revenue Appeals Board (TRAB) and the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal (TRAT), which had declined jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The case arose from a jeopardy income tax assessment issued against a non-resident company, with the appellant alleged to have acted as its dependent agent in the country.
After being copied on the assessment, the appellant lodged a notice of objection and simultaneously applied for a full waiver of the mandatory one-third tax deposit required under the Tax Administration Act (TAA).
Under the TAA, taxpayers wishing to object to a tax assessment must pay a mandatory deposit—the higher of the undisputed tax amount or onethird of the assessed tax—to validate their objection.
While taxpayers can apply for a waiver of this deposit, the TRA has historically been accused of delaying these decisions, leaving taxpayers in a legal limbo where their objections are not admitted, yet they have no clear path to appeal the delay.
In this specific case, the appellant, Wilbert Basilius Kapinga, applied for a waiver following a jeopardy income tax assessment.
Despite filing within the legal timeframe, the CG issued a rejection well outside the statutory limit.
When the taxpayer sought recourse, both the TRAB and TRAT declined to hear the case, claiming they lacked jurisdiction based on previous judicial precedents.
The Court of Appeal overturned the previous concurrent decisions, explicitly describing the TRA’s perceived immunity from statutory timelines as a ‘myth.’
ALSO READ: TRA urges taxpayers to embrace IDRAS for transparent, efficient services
In a decisive ruling, the Court anchored its judgment on three critical pillars that redefine the relationship between tax authorities and the public.
The Court of Appeal clarified that Section 53(1) of the TAA (now Section 64(1)) creates a right of appeal against objection decisions, other decisions and omissions, holding that delay in deciding a waiver qualifies as an actionable omission.
It affirmed that statutory timelines are mandatory and that failure to comply is unlawful, rejecting any notion that administrative delay enjoys impunity.
The Court further ruled that statutory jurisdiction cannot be ousted by judicial precedent, distinguishing and confining the PanAfrican Energy decisions to their specific contexts.
It found the Board and Tribunal’s reliance on those cases to decline jurisdiction to be erroneous, quashed their decisions and directed TRAB to hear the appeal on its merits without delay.
Overall, the judgment marks a significant shift in Tanzania’s tax dispute framework by confirming that administrative inaction is legally challengeable, reinforcing accountability, procedural fairness, and certainty for taxpayers and investors.