G. S. Contractors Limited appealed against a decision of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal dated 3 February 2015 in Tax Appeal No. 22 of 2014.
Before the appeal could be heard on its merits, the Commissioner General of the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) raised a preliminary objection under Rule 107(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
TRA argued that the appeal was incompetent because the record of appeal did not contain a copy of the decree issued by the Tax Revenue Appeals Board. The objection was based on section 25(2) of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act, read together with Rule 96(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
The appellant argued that the omission was not fatal because the Tax Revenue Appeals Board was, in its view, a court of first instance rather than the first appellate court. Alternatively, counsel requested permission to amend the record of appeal to include the missing document in the interests of justice.
The Court considered the following issues:
1. Whether the record of appeal was defective for failure to include the decree of the Tax Revenue Appeals Board as required by Rule 96(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
2. Whether the Tax Revenue Appeals Board and the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal occupied successive appellate levels in Tanzania's tax dispute resolution framework.
3. Whether the appeal was competent in the absence of the mandatory documents, including the certificate confirming that a point of law was involved in the third appeal.
The Court of Appeal upheld TRA's preliminary objection and struck out the appeal.
The Court held that the Tax Revenue Appeals Board is the first appellate body in tax disputes against decisions of the Commissioner General, while the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal is the second appellate body against decisions of the Board.
Consequently, section 25(2) of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act, read together with Rule 96(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, required the record of appeal to contain the specified documents relating to the proceedings before the first appellate body, including its decree or order.
Furthermore, because the matter constituted a third appeal, the record was also required to contain a certificate from the High Court confirming that a point of law was involved. The Court stated that the absence of this certificate rendered the appeal incompetent.
The appeal was therefore struck out, with each party bearing its own costs. The Court did not determine the substantive merits of the tax dispute.
A. Mandatory compliance with appellate procedure
The decision reinforces the principle that procedural requirements governing the preparation of a record of appeal are mandatory where the applicable rules expressly require particular documents. An appellant must ensure that the record is complete before the appeal is presented for determination.
B. Clarification of the hierarchy of tax appeals
The Court clarified the successive appellate roles of the Tax Revenue Appeals Board and the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal. This distinction is important when determining which prior proceedings and documents must be included in the record before the Court of Appeal.
C. Competence of a third appeal
The judgment emphasizes that a third appeal must satisfy the additional requirement of a certificate confirming that a point of law is involved. Failure to meet this requirement renders the appeal incompetent, irrespective of the underlying merits of the dispute.
D. Practical implications for tax litigation
For practitioners handling tax appeals in Tanzania, the decision underscores the need to verify the record against Rule 96(2), include the relevant decisions, decrees or orders from the lower appellate bodies, and ensure compliance with the applicable requirements for a third appeal. Failure to do so may prevent the Court from considering the substantive dispute.
E. Distinction between striking out and dismissing an appeal
The Court struck out the appeal on procedural grounds rather than dismissing it after examining its merits. The ruling therefore concerns appellate competence and procedural compliance, not the correctness of the underlying tax determination.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.