Gulf Badr Group (Tanzania) Limited was a shipping agent for Evergreen Marine (Singapore) PTE Limited, a non-resident shipping line providing international carriage of goods to customers in Tanzania.
In 2023, the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA), through the Commissioner General, assessed Gulf Badr Group for VAT on demurrage charges collected during 2021. The assessment amounted to TZS 192,522,251.26, comprising:
Principal VAT: TZS 175,414,119.03.
Interest on late payment: TZS 17,108,132.23.
Gulf Badr objected to the assessment, arguing that demurrage was a penalty imposed on importers for failing to return shipping containers or equipment within the agreed period. It contended that such payments were not consideration for a taxable supply of services under the Value Added Tax Act, 2014 (VATA).
Alternatively, the company argued that demurrage formed an integral part of international transport services and therefore qualified for zero-rating.
TRA rejected the objection. It maintained that demurrage represented consideration for the continued use or storage of shipping containers in Tanzania and was therefore taxable. It also argued that the charges were not part of the zero-rated international transport service.
Both the Tax Revenue Appeals Board and the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal rejected the company's appeal. Gulf Badr subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania.
The Court of Appeal identified three principal issues:
Whether demurrage charges constituted a taxable supply under section 3(1) of the VATA.
Whether demurrage charges qualified for zero-rating under section 59(3) of the VATA, subsequently reflected in section 61(3)(a) of the revised Act.
Whether TRA was entitled to impose interest on the assessed VAT.
Holding: Demurrage charges, as considered in this case, were penalties for breach of the agreed shipping terms and did not constitute consideration for a taxable supply of services.
The Court rejected the Tribunal's characterization of demurrage as rental income or payment for continued access to commercial assets.
Drawing upon the Tanzania Shipping (Shipping Agencies) Regulations, 2018, international shipping practice and comparative judicial decisions, the Court reasoned that demurrage compensates a shipping line for loss arising when a consignee delays collecting or returning containers beyond the agreed free period.
The Court emphasized that demurrage is not a voluntary payment for an additional service. Rather, it is a contractual consequence of exceeding the agreed time limits under the contract of carriage.
It referred to comparative decisions, including C-295/17 Meo Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira, and the Kenyan decisions involving Gulf Badr Group, which supported distinguishing contractual penalties from payments constituting consideration for services.
Accordingly, the Tribunal erred in law by holding that demurrage constituted a taxable supply under section 3(1) of the VATA.
Holding: The Court held that demurrage formed an integral part of international transport services and was zero-rated under section 61(3)(a) of the VATA.
The Court reasoned that demurrage arose from the bill of lading, which governed the international carriage of goods. It was a contingent contractual term associated with the international shipping arrangement, rather than an independent domestic transaction or an ancillary service supplied separately.
The Court therefore rejected the Tribunal's conclusion that demurrage charges were outside the scope of zero-rated international transport services.
An important distinction in the judgment is that the Court first held demurrage was not a taxable supply at all. It then addressed zero-rating as an additional ground, explaining that demurrage was integral to the international transport contract.
Holding: The interest assessment was invalid.
Since the underlying VAT assessment was unlawful, there was no valid tax liability on which the assessed interest could stand. The Court therefore found that the Tribunal had also erred in upholding the interest imposed by TRA.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in its entirety and set aside the Tribunal's judgment and orders.
Consequently, it nullified the entire VAT assessment of TZS 192,522,251.26, comprising the principal tax and interest. Each party was ordered to bear its own cost.
The decision establishes an important distinction between payments made as consideration for services and payments imposed as contractual penalties. For VAT purposes, the mere fact that a payment arises in the course of commercial activity does not automatically make it consideration for a taxable supply.
The legal character of the payment and the transaction giving rise to it must be examined.
The Court rejected the argument that demurrage should automatically be treated as rental income merely because it relates to the continued use of shipping equipment. Its reasoning indicates that compensation for loss arising from contractual delay is distinguishable from payment for a separately supplied service.
This principle may be relevant beyond shipping where tax authorities seek to characterize contractual default charges as consideration for services. Its application, however, depends on the legal and commercial nature of the particular payment.
The judgment recognizes the contractual relationship between demurrage and international carriage under a bill of lading. It rejects the treatment of the charges as an independent domestic transaction in the circumstances of the case.
For shipping agents, importers and international carriers, the decision provides guidance on distinguishing integral contractual charges from independent local services. The judgment's reasoning should not, however, be read as automatically zero-rating every charge associated with international transport.
The Court confirmed that interest imposed on an invalid principal tax assessment cannot stand on the basis advanced by TRA in this case. The decision highlights the importance of establishing the underlying tax liability before imposing consequential interest.
As a decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the judgment carries significant precedential weight for lower courts and tax dispute bodies dealing with materially similar issues.
It also illustrates the value of comparative jurisprudence in interpreting tax concepts where domestic legislation does not expressly define the relevant commercial term. The Court used international shipping practice and foreign decisions to inform its interpretation of demurrage under Tanzanian law.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.