Civil Reference No. 7 of 2004
The appellant, G.S. Contractors Limited, sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania against the decision of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal dated 31 July 2014 (Tax Appeal No. 22 of 2014), which itself arose from a decision of the Tax Revenue Appeals Board on an assessment/decision of the Commissioner General (TRA). Before the appeal could be heard, the respondent lodged a Notice of Preliminary Objection under Rule 107(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, contending that the appeal was incompetent because it contravened Section 25(2) of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act read with Rule 96(2) of the Rules. Specifically, the respondent pointed out that the record of appeal did not include a copy of the decree issued by the Tax Appeals Board, arguing this omission was significant because, if the Tribunal's decision were vacated, the Board's decree would need to be available for enforcement.
Whether the appeal, being a third appeal in the tax appeals hierarchy, was competently before the Court of Appeal given the absence from the record of appeal of the decree of the Tax Revenue Appeals Board, as required by Section 25(2) of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act read with Rule 96(2) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009; and, related to this, whether the Tax Revenue Appeals Board constitutes the 'first appellate court' for purposes of Rule 96(2), or merely a court of first instance.
The respondent, through counsel, argued that the appeal was brought in contravention of Section 25(2) of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act and Rule 96(2) of the Rules because the record of appeal omitted the decree of the Tax Appeals Board, an essential document under Rule 96(2)(e). The respondent reasoned that this decree would be needed for enforcement should the Tribunal's decision be vacated, and thus its absence rendered the appeal incompetent. The appellant's counsel countered that the Tax Appeals Board was not the 'first appellate court' contemplated by Rule 96(2), but rather the court of first instance following the Commissioner General's decision; therefore, the omission of the Board's decree was not fatal, as Rule 96(2) pertains to documents relating to the first appellate court, not the trial/first-instance court. Alternatively, the appellant's counsel prayed that, should the Court find the Board's decree necessary, the appellant be permitted to amend the record of appeal to include the missing document, invoking Rules 4(1), (2)(b) and 111 of the Rules in the interest of justice.
The Court of Appeal held that the Tax Revenue Appeals Board and the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal are both appellate bodies, albeit at different levels: the Board is the first appellate court from a decision of the Commissioner General, and the Tribunal is the second appellate court from the decision of the Board. Consequently, since the present appeal to the Court of Appeal was a third appeal, Section 25(2) of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act read with Rule 96(2) of the Rules mandatorily required the record of appeal to contain the documents listed in Rule 96(2)(a) to (f), including the decree of the first appellate court (the Board), as well as a certificate that a point of law is involved. The absence of the Board's decree from the record, and by implication the absence of the requisite certificate on a point of law, rendered the appeal incompetent. The Court found this point of objection sufficient to dispose of the matter and struck out the appeal, with each party bearing its own costs.
The ruling clarifies the appellate hierarchy in Tanzania's tax dispute resolution system, establishing that the Tax Revenue Appeals Board functions as the first appellate court from decisions of the Commissioner General, and the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal as the second appellate court, meaning any further appeal to the Court of Appeal is a third appeal. This classification has practical significance for compliance with Rule 96(2) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, as it dictates which documents (including decrees and certificates on points of law) must mandatorily be included in the record of appeal for such third appeals. The decision underscores that failure to include these mandatory documents, particularly the decree of the first appellate body and a certificate that a point of law is involved, renders an appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out, reinforcing strict procedural compliance in tax appeal litigation before the Court of Appeal.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.