On 4 February 2026, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania (CAT or Court) delivered a landmark judgement in Civil Appeal No. 145 of 2022 where it held that:
- Tax Revenue Appeals Board (TRAB) and the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal (TRAT) have jurisdiction to hear appeals not only against formal objection decisions but also against other decisions, and omissions by the Commissioner General. This includes instances where the Commissioner General fails to decide a taxpayer application for tax waiver within the prescribed timeframe thereby making such failure an appealable omission.
- Court precedents cannot implicitly limit jurisdiction explicitly granted by the statute. TRAB and TRAT incorrectly applied the previous rulings to restrict the Board statutory authority to hear certain appeals as jurisdiction fundamentally derives from the statute and not interpretation of the precedents.
The facts
The dispute arose from a jeopardy income tax assessment issued by the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) to a non-resident company, with the appellant alleged to be its local representative. The appellant filed a notice of objection and applied for a waiver of the requirement to pay a third of tax assessed as a condition for the objection to be admitted.
The TRA rejected the waiver application after a delay, citing that it had been filed out of time. The appellant appealed to the TRAB, arguing that the waiver application was timely and the TRA’s delayed decision was procedurally defective.
Both the TRAB and the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal (TRAT) dismissed the appeal on the basis that only objection decisions are appealable. Both bodies relied on the position established in the cases of Pan African Energy Tanzania Ltd (Pan African cases) in which the CAT affirmed that only objection decisions are appealable. It should be remembered that in Pan African case the court emphasised that granting of waiver of one third is discretionary on the TRA, cannot be objected and hence there cannot be an objection decision which would then be appealed. Â
In deciding this case the CAT addressed the following issues of determination:
- Whether the Commissioner General of TRA failure’s to determine a waiver application within a prescribed period constitutes an omission appealable to the TRAB.
- Whether the TRAB and TRAT were bound by the principles enunciated in the earlier decisions in two cases of Pan African Energy Tanzania Ltd.
Legal analysis
The Court held that, under section 53(1) of the Tax Administration Act (now section 64(1)), an omission by the TRA, including a failure to act within statutory timelines, is capable of being challenged on appeal. This confirms that taxpayers are not limited to appealing formal objection decisions.
The Court emphasised that statutory timelines imposed on the TRA are mandatory and form part of good tax administration. The Court criticised the TRA’s delay and indicated that non-compliance may undermine the accountability of bodes vested with statutory powers.
The Court clarified that its earlier decisions in Pan African cases were fact-specific and should not be interpreted as limiting the statutory jurisdiction of the TRAB. It should be noted that in the Pan African case, the TRA rejected the waiver application within time as opposed to the current case where the TRA rejected the waiver application out of time. The Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction is derived from statute and cannot be curtailed by judicial precedent.
Practical implication for taxpayers
- Taxpayers may now challenge administrative inaction or delay by the TRA through the appellate process.
- Statutory timelines imposed on the TRA have practical enforceability, not merely procedural significance.
- While waiver decisions remain non-appealable in themselves, delays or failures in handling such applications may give rise to an appealable omission.
- Taxpayers should closely monitor timelines applicable to applications and objections, as TRA inaction may now create a basis for escalation to the TRAB.
