The dispute arose from the Value Added Tax (VAT) treatment of bran and pollard, which are by-products obtained during the mechanical processing of wheat.
The Tax Revenue Appeals Board held that bran and pollard constituted the outer layer of wheat obtained through machine processing and were therefore distinct from wheat itself. Consequently, they did not qualify for the VAT exemption applicable to wheat. The Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal upheld that decision.
Pembe Flour Mills Limited appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, challenging the Tribunal's decision. However, before the substantive appeal could be heard, the Commissioner General of the Tanzania Revenue Authority raised a preliminary objection under Rule 107(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
The objection was that the decree issued by the Tribunal was defective because it had been signed only by the Vice-Chairman and not by all members who heard the appeal. The respondent argued that this defect rendered the appeal incompetent.
Pembe Flour Mills contended that Rule 21 of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal Rules, 2001 required the Tribunal's decision, rather than its decree, to be signed by all members. It further argued that the appeal should proceed on its merits.
The Court considered the following issues:
Whether a decree issued by the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal must be signed by all members who participated in deciding the appeal.
Whether failure to obtain a decree properly signed by all Tribunal members renders an appeal before the Court of Appeal incompetent.
Whether the Court could disregard the procedural defect and proceed to hear the substantive appeal.
The Court of Appeal upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the appeal with costs.
The Court held that:
The decree must be signed by all members of the Tribunal who participated in the decision. Although Rule 21 expressly requires the Tribunal's decision to be signed and certified by its members, the decree is also a necessary procedural document.
A valid decree is a mandatory component of the record of appeal. Under Rule 96(2)(e) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, the decree forms part of the record of appeal.
An improperly signed decree renders the appeal incompetent. Since the decree in this case was signed only by the Vice-Chairman, it did not satisfy the applicable procedural requirements.
The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the Tribunal's signed decision alone was sufficient to institute a competent appeal.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied on previous decisions, including Mbeya Intertrade Company Limited v Commissioner General, Tanzania Revenue Authority, Civil Appeal No. 68 “A” of 2010, and Midcom Tanzania Limited v Commissioner General (TRA), Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2011.
The Court therefore did not determine the substantive dispute concerning the VAT exemption of bran and pollard.
The decision reinforces the principle that compliance with procedural requirements governing appeals is essential. An appellant must ensure that the record of appeal contains the prescribed documents in the legally required form. Failure to do so may prevent the Court from entertaining the appeal, regardless of the merits of the underlying dispute.
The Court clarified that a Tribunal decision and its decree serve different procedural purposes. The decision records the Tribunal's determination, while the decree is necessary to give effect to the decision and is also required for purposes of instituting an appeal. The existence of a properly signed decision does not cure a defective decree.
The judgment confirms that where a Tribunal sits with three members, the decree must be signed by all members who participated in the decision. A signature by the presiding Vice-Chairman alone is insufficient under the procedural requirements applied by the Court.
The case is particularly important to advocates handling tax appeals before the Court of Appeal. Before filing an appeal, counsel should verify that the record contains a valid decree signed by all relevant Tribunal members. This procedural review can prevent an appeal from being struck out before substantive tax issues are considered.
The appellant invoked Article 107A of the Constitution, concerning the administration of justice, to urge the Court to overlook the defect. The Court nevertheless upheld the preliminary objection. The ruling demonstrates that a general appeal to substantive justice does not automatically excuse non-compliance with mandatory appellate requirements.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.