Tax Appeals Tribunal Clarifies the 90-Day Timeline for Objection Decisions & Taxpayer Elections

Tax Appeals Tribunal Clarifies the 90 – Day Timeline for Objection Decisions and Taxpayer Elections

The Tax Appeals Tribunal in Munyanga Development Limited V Uganda Revenue Authority; TAT Application No. 73 of 2026 clarified computation of the statutory 90- day period within which the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) must serve an objection decision under Section 26 (6) of the Tax Procedures Code Act (TPCA), and the legal effect of an election made under section 26(7) of the TPCA.

Background

Munyanga Development Limited, which operates Mahogany Springs Luxury Resort, was issued with tax assessments by the URA. The company lodged an objection to the assessments on 31 st December 2025. Under section 26(6) of the TPCA, URA was required to serve an objection decision within 90 days from the date of receipt of the objection.

On 31 st March 2026, the Applicant lodged an election under section 26(7) of the TPCA to treat its objection as allowed. URA subsequently issued an objection decision later that day, partially allowing the objection and maintaining tax assessments of UGX 1,808,625,194. The Applicant lodged an appeal before the Tax Appeals Tribunal challenging the validity of the objection decisions issued after its election.

Arguments by the Parties

The Applicant argued that the election was valid and that objection decisions subsequently issued were unlawful, having been issued without jurisdiction and in contravention of Section 26(7) and 26(8) of the TPCA.

URA contended that the election was invalid. Relying on Section 34(1)(a) of the Interpretation Act, URA argued that the date of receipt of the objection was excluded from the computation of time and that the 90th day therefore fell on 31 March 2026, when it issued its objection decision. In the alternative, URA argued that the 90-day period had been extended under Section 26(9) of the TPCA following its request for additional information on 30 March 2026.

In rejoinder, the Applicant argued that the TPCA, as the specific legislation governing tax procedure, took precedence over the general provisions of the Interpretation Act. The Applicant further argued that Section 26(9) did not provide for an automatic or implied waiver of time merely because the URA requested additional information. The provision had to be expressly invoked by notifying the taxpayer.

Tribunal’s Findings

90-day period commenced on the date URA
received the objection.

Relying on Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2001, the Tribunal reiterated that statutory time limits are matters of substantive law, not mere technicalities, and must be strictly complied with.

The Tribunal held that Section 26(6) of the TPCA specifies that the 90-day period starts “from” the date of receipt of the objection, in contrast of the word “after” used in other provisions of the TPCA.

TPCA prevails over the Interpretation Act

Relying on Uganda Revenue Authority v Kampala Properties Limited & 4 Others, Miscellaneous Cause No. 026 of 2024, the Tribunal held that where a special Act gives a full, clear rule for the matter, that rule takes precedence over the general law. Accordingly, Section 26 (6) of the TPCA as the specific provision governing the computation of the 90-day period, prevailed over Section 34(1) (a) of the Interpretation Act.

The Tribunal found that the 90-day period commenced on 31 st December 2025 and expired on 30 th March 2026. The Applicant’s election, which was accepted in URA’s system on 31 st March 2026, was made after expiry of the statutory period and was therefore valid.

A valid election is self-executing

The Tribunal held that the legal consequence of an election is automatic and self- executing by operation of law,
and does not require the Commissioner General’s concurrence, approval, or acceptance.

Upon the Applicant lodging its election at 9:50am on 31st March 2026, the objection was conclusively resolved by operation of law in its favour. The Respondent became functus officio and ceased to have any jurisdiction to issue, vary or supplement any further objection decision in respect to the same objection. Having failed to serve its decision before the Applicant’s election took effect, the Respondent could not remedy that failure by purporting to
issue a decision hours later.

A request for information does not automatically extend the 90-day period

Reaffirming its position in Kumi Orthopedic Centre Ltd V URA, TAT Application No 23 of 2018, the Tribunal held that for Section 26(9) to foreclose the Applicant’s right of election, the waiver had to be communicated to the taxpayer before the election was lodged.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the Respondent had notified the Applicant that the 90-day period had been waived or extended, or that the information requested was for purposes of making an objection decision. Even if the request triggered a waiver, the Respondent failed to communicate any consequential extension to the Applicant before the election was lodged.

Subsequent objection decisions and assessments void

The Tribunal found that the additional assessments of UGX 1,808,625,194 arose from the objection decisions issued after the Applicant’s election. Since the decisions were issued without jurisdiction, they were void ab initio, and the assessments arising therefrom were equally void and unenforceable.

Key Takeaway

• The 90-day period under Section 26(6) of the TPCA runs from and includes the date URA receives the objection.
• The specific time computation rules under the TPCA prevail over the general provisions of the Interpretation Act.
• A valid election under section 26(7) is self-executing and does not require URA’s approval.
  Once an election takes effect, URA becomes functus officio and cannot subsequently issue an objection decision in respect of the same objection.
• A request for additional information does not, by itself, extend the 90-day period; any reliance on section 26(9) must be communicated to the taxpayer before the right of election is exercised.
• A taxpayer must expressly exercise its right to elect. The mere expiry of the 90-day period does not, by itself invalidate a subsequent objection decision.

Contact us to discuss your matters

Plot 14 Archer Road Kololo

P.O. box 21086, Kampala, Uganda

+256 414 348 669

info@taxconsultants.co.ug

https://taxconsultants.co.ug