Connect with us

  • MY MONEY

    How Rujoki’s URA Floored Airtel In Shs1.5bn Tax Debt Legal War…

    Published

    12 months ago

    on

    URA boss John Musinguzi Rujoki (L) and Aitrel's Manoj Murali (R)

    In a unanimous judgment, five justices of the Supreme Court lead by Chief Justice Alofonse Owiny-Dollo, and other justices on the panel who included; justice Faith Mwondha, Justice Mike Chibita, Justice Elizabeth Musoke and Justice Stephen Musota, court allowed the Shs1.5bn appeal filed by John Musinguzi Rujoki’s Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) against Airtel Uganda.

    In the lead judgment, Justice Musoke declared that it was wrong for the Court of Appeal justices to refund Shs1.5bn collected as taxes from Airtel which resulted from an overturned judgment at the Commercial Division of the High Court which dismissed Airtel’s petition.

    Justice Musoke agreed with URA lawyers led by Ronald Masamba Baluku, Barbra Ajambo Nahone, Aliddeki Ssali Alex and Agaba Edmond that Celtel Uganda, which Airtel Uganda bought in 2010 defaulted their tax obligation which led to the Shs1.5bn Court battle.

    It all started on 26th February, 2004, when URA served Celtel tax assessment consisting of excise duty, Value Added Tax (VAT) and penal tax amounting to Shs.1,024,209,566. The outstanding tax had been arrived at following an audit by URA into Celtel’s tax affairs.

    Celtel accepted liability in relation to only part of the tax debt and disputed the other part. The disputed tax debt consisted of VAT in amounts of Shs.358,652,4581 and penal tax of Shs.253, 61,6601 which led to a total of Shs.611,814,118.

    According to Court records, Celtel lodged objections against the tax debt in the Tax Appeals Tribunal.

    The record further reveals that before filing of the suit, Celtel, in accordance with the law, paid 300% of the tax debt, in the amount of Shs.183,544,2351 which was dismissed.

    Celtel filed another appeal in the Commercial Division of the High Court which was also dismissed by Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire.

    In 2010, Airtel acquired the assets and assumed the liabilities of Celtel including the tax debt which was under Court contestation and opted to pay the unpaid balance left by Celtel  which amounted to Shs. 428,269,883.

    However, URA informed Airtel that during the pendency of the tax objection proceedings, the unpaid tax had been accruing interest and that its tax liability had increased to Shs. 1,555,836,915 which Airtel protested.

    Airtel however paid the amount as assessed by URA but reserved its right to challenge the validity of the assessment in Courts of law.

    They lost at the High Court but won at the Court of Appeal.

    URA challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal at the Supreme Court insisting that Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law and facts and they wanted the Supreme Court justices to answer the key question of whether the Court of Appeal gave the correct import of Section 65 (3) of the Value Added Act, Cap. 349 (VATA) and other applicable provisions in so far as they applied to the penal tax assessed on Airtel.

    “A person who  fails to pay tax imposed under this Act on or before the due date is liable to pay a penal tax on the unpaid tax at a rate specified in the Fifth Schedule for the tax which is outstanding,” the URA lawyers stated in their submissions.

    They added that the Fifth Schedule to the VATA stipulates that the penal tax payable under Section 65 (3) shall take the form of interest, and the rate of interest chargeable as penalty shall be 2% per month.

    The lawyers added that Section 65 (3) of the VATA is applicable whenever a person fails to pay VAT tax, by the due date which under Section 34A of the VATA and is what they applied in the matter which was before the court.

    He noted that the provision is aimed at penalizing a person who fails to remit VAT tax by the due date insisting that the Justices of the Court of Appeal erred when they declared that the penal tax imposed under Section 65 (3) is suspended once Airtel objects to the assessment.

    Lawyers further noted that the Justices of the Court of Appeal erred by carrying out a constitutional interpretation exercise in its judgment yet it was not sitting as a Constitutional Court but it was sitting as a Court of Appeal and was determining an ordinary appeal thus they ought not to have based on Article 44 (c) to read a meaning into Section 65 (3) of the Constitution.

    The lawyers accused the justices of the Court of Appeal of erring when they disclosed that Article 44 (c) insulated the defaulting tax payer from the penal tax under Section 65 (3) and emphasized that Article 44 (c) which provides for access to courts had no bearing on the matter before court as imposition of a penal tax did not prevent access to courts which is the right guaranteed under Article 44 (c).

    However, Airtel lawyers led by Counsel Albert Byamugisha supported the decision of the Court of Appeal noting that they gave the correct view on the position of the law which is that a person who objects to a tax assessment is not liable to penal tax under Section 65 (3) of the VATA.

    He added that Section 65 (3) imposes criminal liability on a person who fails to pay VAT by the due date explaining that a person who lodges an objection in the Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT) does not attract such liability.

    He explained that proceedings in the TAT are permitted under Section 14 and 15 (1) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, Cap. 345 (TAT Act) in connection to Section 14 which states, “Any person who is aggrieved by a decision made under a taxing Act by the URA may apply to the tribunal for a review of the decision. A taxpayer who has lodged a notice of objection to an assessment shall, pending final resolution of the objection, pay 30 percent of the tax assessed or that part of the tax assessed not in dispute, whichever is greater.”

    In her assessment, Justice Musoke noted that the tax in issue before the Supreme Court fell under Section 34 (1) (b) because it was assessed on Celtel in accordance with the provision of the law and the tax was assessed following a tax audit by URA in which it was discovered that Celtel had not been remitting VAT in relation to certain taxable supplies for the period April 2000 to July 2003.

    She added that in the first place, a taxpayer is, under Section 31 of the VATA, obliged to lodge a tax return with the Commissioner General for each tax period within fifteen days after the end of the period.

    It is only after the taxpayer has defaulted on voluntarily lodging a tax return that the Commissioner General is, under Section 32 of the VATA, empowered to make and serve an assessment on the taxpayer.

    She found out that Celtel defaulted on its obligation to timely file tax returns in relation to the VAT, and as a result, the Commissioner General made and served a tax assessment on it in accordance with the law.

    She explained that in those circumstances, Celtel was already a tax defaulter for failing to file tax returns in accordance with the law and Celtel failed to pay the tax on the date of 26th February, 2004 when it was filed with an assessment, it was also a defaulter from that date.

    “It therefore follows that the Court of Appeal erred when it ordered a refund of Shs 1,555,836,915 paid by the respondent as unpaid VAT and penal tax thereon that accrued during the pendency of tax objection proceedings instituted by the respondent. The respondent is not entitled to a refund of the said money. It will be noted that the VATA imposes a penal tax where a taxpayer defaults in paying tax on or before the due date,” she ruled.

    She further dismissed Airtel’s cross appeal challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal directing URA to return the said Shs1.5bn with interest.

     

    By Sengooba Alirabaki

    Views: 1,531

    Comments

    Related Topics:
    Click to comment

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    MY MONEY

    Kampala City Traders Boss Kabanda In Deep Trouble For Mismanaging Money Members Contributed To Fight EFRIS…

    Published

    21 hours ago

    on

    September 9, 2024

    By

    FUTA chairperson John Kabanda (L) and Godfrey Katongole (R)

    Kampala city traders associations members under their umbrella body the Federation of Uganda Traders Association (FUTA) have tasked their controversial chairperson John Kabanda to give them accountability for the funds they contributed to run federation activities.

    Isaac Kauma, a member of Kampala Traders Association, exclusively revealed to theGrapevine that Kabanda turned furious and started spreading malicious propaganda against a section of traders who are demanding for accountability of their money which they have been contributing since last year.

    Kauma narrated that when President Museveni confirmed that he was going meet them again on 18th July, 2024 at Kololo Airstrip ground to further discuss their grievances over the controversial Electronic Fiscal Receipting and Invoicing Solution (EFRIS), Kabanda and other FUTA leaders approached traders and asked them to contribute money which they were going to use to transport traders from all corners of the country to fill the entire venue to show the president that they have the numbers and the capacity.

    He added that Kabanda confirmed to them that they need numbers to out compete members of the Kampala City Traders Association (KACITA) who wanted to show the president that they are the ones controlling traders after accusing KACITA leadership of betraying them and by being in bed with Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) which was imposing EFRIS on them.

    Kauma asserted that more than 1000 traders around Kampala city contributed between Shs10,000-Shs20,000 but the meeting didn’t take place because the venue was under renovation and the president promised to meet them on another date.

    He said that State House made the said announcement after Kabanda and other traders’ leaders met Museveni at State House Entebbe and they were told that Kabanda and his deputy chairperson Godfrey Katongole asked the president for a private meeting with him which the president accepted.

    Kauma added that they later learnt that Kabanda and Katongole asked the President to give them Shs3bn to mobilize traders to accept EFRIS a proposal the president declined to accept.

    The President told them that he doesn’t the money they were asking for but promised to put Shs300m in their SACCO.

    “From that day, Kabanda’s behavior is questionable, he always doesn’t want to be asked questions on why the president is not meeting us and turns furious when asked to give us accountability for the money we contributed for the function which didn’t take place,” Kauma said.

    He revealed that the accountability issue has weakened the federation thus causing a sharp fight between Kabanda and Katongole.

    Other traders allege that Kabanda has fired Katongole from being his vice chairperson and removed him from their WhatsApp group and replaced him with Moses Lwegaba the chairperson of Katukazane Shoe Dealers Association.

    Sources claim that Katongole supporters are now threatening to take action against Kabanda for firing the man who has done everything in the struggle to fight for traders and replaced him with a newcomer.

    Insiders are now alleging that the two leaders are fighting over a bribe they received during the EFRIS strike when traders closed their shops.

    There is another allegation that Katongole was given money to go to the Eastern part of the country and mobilize traders to join the strike but he refused to go and decided to hide in Kampala.

    When he was put under pressure to provide evidence that he traveled upcountry and had none, he was shown the exit.

    When contacted, Kabanda confirmed the infighting, explaining that it is aimed at weakening his FUTA leadership and the trust that the traders have placed in them.

    He revealed that even though he is receiving threatening messages, his resolve is still strong and he is ready to fight for all traders.

    He denied allegations of mismanaging traders’ money.

     

    By Timothy Nyanzi

    Views: 19

    Comments

    Continue Reading

    CRIME

    ABSA Bank Dragged To Court For Stealing Dead Customer’s Money…

    Published

    3 weeks ago

    on

    August 21, 2024

    By

    Eunice Nabadda Kayondo the Administrator of the Estate of the late Dan Kayondo has dragged ABSA bank to the High Court Civil Division Kampala over allegations of stealing money for the dead.

    Nabadda through her lawyers led by Ronald Ruhinda claims that she is a daughter to Kayondo who was also given powers by court to administer his Estate including the bank account number 0288045860 which is in ABSA Bank Luwum Street Branch in Kampala city.

    In her affidavit, she told court that after securing the powers of administering her father’s bank account, she went to the bank and the bank’s managers verified and approved her documents declaring her as the single signatory of the said bank account.

    She narrated that the bank took all the necessary requirements including her telephone number which was going to be used for subsequent notifications and alerts.

    She added that she found Shs40m on her father’s bank account.

    She divulged that since the day she took over the account, she has never withdrawn any money, but she was surprised to learn that the account had only Shs3m as outstanding balance recently.

    She insists that the bank breached the confidence she entrusted them with and slept on the job thus she wants court to compel them to pay her for the damage they caused.

    “The plaintiff shall aver and contend that the acts and omissions of the defendants (bank) affected the Estate adversely and shall seek general damages of Ug Shs100, 000, 000,” the lawyers stated in their plaint.

    Nabadda added that because of the bank’s actions, she suffered great loss and mental anguish for which she wants court to award her special damages.

    She further wants court to order the bank to return Shs40m that was removed from her bank account without her knowledge.

    However, the bank through their lawyers led by David Mpanga denied all the allegations insisting that they were not aware of the said fraud.

     

    By Sengooba Alirabaki

    Views: 378

    Comments

    Continue Reading

    MY MONEY

    Inside Equity Bank, Dei Pharmaceuticals Tycoon Magoola Fresh Legal Fight Over Shs578bn Bailout From M7 Government …

    Published

    4 weeks ago

    on

    August 13, 2024

    By

    Dr. Mathias Magoola (bottom R) is battling Anthony Kituuka's Equity Bank over a loan facility they offered him

    Dr. Mathias Magoola together with his companies Dei Industries International Limited and Dei Biopharma limited formally Dei Natural Products International industries limited has institute a commercial suit in the High Court Commercial Division accuses Equity bank Uganda and Kenya of fraudulently scheming to target the money given to him by President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni’s government to settle his financial troubles and save his companies.

    A few months back, parliament approved Shs578bn to be given to Magoola as bailout to his companies which were facing financial hardships with banks threatening to auction his properties which he used as security.

    However, through his lawyers led by commercial law giant Fred Muwema, Magoola alleges that when the bank got information that government had bailed him out, it started inflating his loan balance of with the mission of taking all the money given to him by government.

    He wants court to declare that the bank’s demand dated 27th June, 2024 both in US dollars and shillings for the payment of the outstanding loan was illegal.

    He explain to court that in 2016, he entered into a banker-customer relationship with equity bank and he applied for and obtained a credit facility of Shs400m to finance the completion of the construction of his factory at Kyadondo Block 82, plot 3228 Kiryamuli.

    He continued obtaining several loans in subsequent years from the same financial institution.

    He notes that all the credit facilities he obtained from equity bank contained a clause which encouraged him to seek independent legal advice in order to understand all the terms and conditions of the loan he was receiving.

    He explains that despite the said clause, the bank officers were overbearing in their advice to him to take the loans as offered owing to the cordial relationship between the parties and thus he took their advice and signed the credit offer letters without consulting external legal lawyers.

    He pins Samuel Kirubi, a manager at equity bank Uganda, Jimmy Mwangagi the Head of Credit, Munywa the Head of Risk, Abel Musiime the Head of Trade and Finance and Edward Ocen the legal officer of the bank for having guided and advised him when signing the loan transaction papers.

    He adds that he was compelled to take the said loans, variation of terms, consolidations and restructures as offered because he was in urgent need of money to finance his capital-intensive projects.

    Magoola accuses the bank officers of placing him in a tight spot with real threats of default foreclosure of his businesses which left him with no option but to accede to the bank’s demands.

    He claims that counsel John Kabandize whose signature was seen on the signed documents as his lawyer was merely a witness to the agreement.

    He explained to court that his companies faced hardship in servicing the loans due to unforeseen circumstances like Covid-19 outbreak and the Russian-Ukraine war which affected wheat imports for one of his companies dealing in import of wheat.

    These hardships forced him to close it three years back.

    He added that the delays in the completion of his medical plant also affected his plans of servicing his loans which resulted into high interest repayments to more than Shs150bn.

    “That the defendants who are in a dominant bargaining position took advantage of the plaintiff’s desperation to engage in predatory lending practice done in violation of his non-delegable fiduciary and statutory duties,” he stated.

    Magoola informed court that he reach out to the bank’s managers pleading with them to be reasonable in their demands.

    He first requested for a waiver of exorbitant loan interests, then he asked to settle the outstanding loan that was at the tune of Shs155,188,727,733.

    When all his prayers were rejected by the bank, which insisted on receiving full payment of the outstanding loan as demanded, he hired a certified public accounting firm to review the credit facilities and loan statements so as to determine the correct outstanding loan.

    The firm issued an initial preliminary report which after full examination of the few loan statements availed, revealed that the banks had inflated the loan outstanding claim by a sum of Shs39,241,743,163.

    He decided to inform the bank in writing.

    Based on the explanation to court, Magoola and his companies prayed to court to issue an order for an account audit and reconciliation of the loan and the current accounts his companies held with the said banks to determine his actual debt, variation of terms, loan consolidations and also restructure it.

    He also wants the court to issue a court order directing the banks to credit the plaintiff’s loan or current accounts with any amount of money found to be unlawfully debited upon the taking of an account, audit and reconciliation.

    He wants court to also direct the bank to refund Shs47,652,951,120 which was unlawfully debited from his loan accounts and also declare that that the interest deducted during moratorium period for credit facilities on account No. 2220578883978 and 2220580311116 amounting to US$4,331,424 was illegal explaining that it denied him cash flow and caused loss and damages to his projects.

    Magoola wants a declaration that the receipt, withholding and transfer of his US$9m loan repayment by equity bank Uganda to equity bank Kenya was an arbitrary act which exposes him to unnecessary penalty interest for which the defendants are liable to refund.

    He insists that during the transfer of his money, they charged him Shs1,045,000,000 as interest which he says was an unlawful. He wants the funds to be returned.

    He notes that the conversion of his US$2.430m credit facility to Shs11.5bn denied him liquidity and resulted in exchange loss to the tune of US$42,750 which the defendants are liable to refund.

    The debiting of Shs80,000,000 as a loan processing fee for variation of terms and loan restructures in the credit facility of Shs16bn was extortionate and unconscionable.

    He further wants the court to declare that the bank’s predatory lending practices resulted in a breach of the bank’s fiduciary and statutory duties owed to him.

    The banks have not yet filed their defense so that the matter can kickoff.

     

    By Sengooba Alirabaki

    Views: 693

    Comments

    Continue Reading

    like us

    TRENDING

    theGrapevine is a subsidiary of Newco Publications Limited, a Ugandan multimedia group.
    We keep you posted on the latest from Uganda and the World. COPYRIGHT © 2022
    P.O Box 5511, Kampala - Uganda Tel: +256-752 227640 Email: info@thegrapevine.co.ug
    theGrapevine is licenced by Uganda Communications Commission (UCC)