Civil Reference No. 7 of 2004
Following a post-clearance customs audit covering 2012–2016, the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) assessed Sunshare Investment Ltd for TZS 1.74 billion on the ground that it had undervalued imported goods. Sunshare argued that several import invoices relied upon by TRA had been cancelled and replaced before importation and that discrepancies in CIF values resulted from accounting errors rather than undervaluation. The Tax Revenue Appeals Board and the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal rejected those arguments, prompting a further appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Whether the appeal raised questions of law as required under section 25(2) of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act.
Whether the lower tribunals erred in placing the burden of proof on the taxpayer.
Whether the tribunals failed to properly evaluate the documentary evidence concerning the cancelled invoices and CIF values.
The Court held that an appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal lies only on questions of law. Although the appellant framed its complaints as legal errors, they essentially sought a re-evaluation of evidence relating to cancelled invoices, accounting records, and factual findings on undervaluation. Such matters are questions of fact, not law. The Court further reaffirmed that under section 18(2) of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that a tax assessment is incorrect. Consequently, the preliminary objection was upheld and the appeal was struck out.
Reinforces the distinction between questions of fact and questions of law in tax appeals.
Confirms that the Court of Appeal will not revisit factual findings disguised as legal questions.
Reaffirms that the burden of proving the incorrectness of a tax assessment rests on the taxpayer.
Serves as an important authority on the jurisdictional limits of the Court of Appeal in tax disputes under the Tax Revenue Appeals Act.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.