Scanad Tanzania Limited vs Commissioner General, Tanzania Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 223 of 2025) [2026] TZCA 604 (22 May 2026)

IN THE COURT OF A P P E A L OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA (CORAM: LILA. J.A.. RUMANYIKA, 3.A. And MANSOOR. J J U CIVIL APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2025 BETWEEN SCANAD TANZANIA LIMITED ................................................... APPELLANT AND THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL, TANZANIA REVENUE AUTHORITY......................................... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal at Dar es Salaam) (R. M. Naimilanaa. Vice Chairperson^ Dated 6th March, 2025 in Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2024 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 1st December 2025 & 22n d May 2026 MANSOOR, 3.A.: The Appellant, Scanad Tanzania Limited, a company incorporated and carrying on its business in Tanzania deals with developing communication strategies, creating advertisements for products and services, plans and buys media, and provides marketing consultancy and advice. The respondent, the Commissioner General of the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA), conducted a tax audit on the appellant's tax i

affairs for the years 2016, 2017, and 2018. Following the audit, on 24th February 2021, the respondent issued tax audit findings alleging, among other things, that, the appellant had underdeclared sales, claimed unverified purchases, double claimed input tax credits and claimed input tax credits without valid tax invoices. On 27thMay 2021, the respondent issued a revised tax audit findings maintaining its earlier position and on 3r d June 2021, the respondent issued notices of additional assessment for Value Added Tax (VAT) with tax debit numbers 498854834, 498854830, and 498854842 for the years 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. The total tax liability assessed was TZS 1,627,384,591. Aggrieved by the assessments, the appellant filed notices of objection on 2n d July 2021. Following various correspondences regarding the requirement to pay one-third of the assessed tax, the respondent admitted the notices of objection after the appellant paid TZS 200,000,000, a lesser amount than the required one third of the assessed tax. On 26th August 2022, the respondent issued its objection decision confirming the assessed amount for payment of VAT. Dissatisfied with the objection decision, the appellant appealed to the Tax Revenue Appeals 2

Board (the Board) vide Consolidated VAT Appeals No. 90, 91, and 92 of 2022 . During the hearing before the Board, the respondent raised a preliminary point of objection against the admission of the appellant's evidence, specifically Appendices 1- 3 of the documents accompanying the notices of objection, on the ground that, these documents had been requested during the audit stage but were not provided, and therefore Section 53(6) of the Tax Administration Act, Cap. 438 R.E 2023 (TAA) barred the production of the documents when filing the objection if the documents were not submitted at the audit stage. On 16th October 2023, the Board delivered its decision in favor of the respondent, holding that the respondent was justified in rejecting the appellant's evidence and that the VAT assessments were correctly issued. The Appellant appealed to the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) vide Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2024. On 6th March 2025, the Tribunal upheld the Board's decision and dismissed the appeal. Still aggrieved, the appellant lodged the present appeal to this Court vide Memorandum of Appeal dated 3r d October 2025, raising three grounds of appeal, namely: 3

1. That the Honorable Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal erred in law by upholding the Board's decision to reject the appellant's evidence (Appendix 1, Appendix 2, and Appendix 3 o f the notices of objection against the VAT assessments for 2016, 2017, and 2018 contrary to Section 53(1), (4) and (6) o f the TAA.
2. That the Honorable Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal erred in law by upholding the Board's decision that the respondent was correct to reject all evidence submitted by the appellant in the notices of objection contrary to Section 53(1), (4) and (6) o f the TAA.
3. That the Honorable Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal erred in law by upholding the Board's decision that the VAT assessments with tax debit numbers 498854834, 498854830, and 498854842 for the years 2016, 2017, and 2018 were correctly issued contrary to Section 53(1), (4) and (6) o f the TAA. When the appeal came for hearing, the appellant was represented by Mr. Roselian Jackson, learned Advocate. The respondent had the representation of Ms. Hadija Senzia, learned Senior State Attorney assisted by Ms. Catherine Mwanila, Ms. Akwila Mrosso, and Mr. Andrew Francis, learned State Attorneys. During the hearing of the appeal and before addressing the merits of the appeal, Ms. Senzia raised a preliminary point of law objecting the competency of the appeal stating that, the appeal was instituted on matters of facts in contravention of Section 26(2) of the Tax Revenue

Appeals Act, Cap. 408 R.E 2013, which provides that an appeal to the Court of Appeal shall lie only on matters involving questions of law. Ms. Senzia argued that all three grounds of appeal raised by the appellant were calling upon this Court to revisit and reevaluate the evidence tendered during the audit, which are matters of facts already determined at the first and the second appeal. That, the appellant calls upon the Court to re-evaluate the issues of facts on whether the respondent, during the objection proceedings, properly rejected the evidence, the issue which was already determined by the Board at the first appellate stage and confirmed by the Tribunal on the second appeal. She submitted that; this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on grounds of facts. She buttressed her arguments relying on the decision in Serengeti Breweries Limited vs Commissioner General, Tanzania Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 453 of 2023) [2025] TZA 685. Responding to the objection, Mr. Jackson stated that, the grounds of appeal raised are pure questions of law. He further submitted that, the question that is required to be determined by the Court is the interpretation and application of Section 53(1) and (6) of the TAA. That, the question of whether the email correspondences and notes of 5

discussion constitute a "notice in writing" under Section 53(1) is a question of law, and therefore the appeal was properly before this Court. He also contended that, the issue of whether the appellant was denied the right to be heard is the issue of law and the interpretation and applicability of section 53(6) of TAA are matters of law. Having considered the submissions of the counsel on the objection, we are of the firm view that, the objection is without merit. The appellant's grounds of appeal challenge the Tribunal's interpretation and application of Section 53 (1) and (6) of the TAA. The determination of whether the decision of the Commissioner General to reject the evidence of the appellant produced together with the notice of objection under Section 62(5) and (6) of TAA was in accordance with the law is a question of law. Again, the issue of whether the appellant was afforded the right to be heard is a question of law as the Court is vested with the jurisdiction to determine issues of law. We accordingly overrule the preliminary objection and proceed to determine the appeal on its merits. Regarding the merits of the appeal at hand, Mr. Jackson made an extensive submission supporting the appeal both in writing and orally. He submitted on the first and second grounds jointly. He argued that, the Tribunal erred in upholding the Board's decision to reject the appellant's 6

evidence embodied in Appendices 1, 2, and 3 of the notice of objection. He drew our attention to Section 53(1) of the TAA and submitted that, for the provisions of Section 53(1) to apply, there must be a valid "notice in writing" issued by the Commissioner General specifically requesting for the documents in question. He argued that, in the present case, no such notice was issued. He contended that, the email correspondences and notes of discussion do not constitute a "notice in writing" under section 53 (1) of TAA. Referring to North Mara Gold Mine Limited vs Commissioner General (TRA) (Civil Appeal 78 of 2015) [2016] TZCA 781 (1 March 2016), Mr. Jackson argued that, in interpreting tax statutes, courts must bear in mind that, tax statutes are in derogation of personal rights and property interests and are therefore subject to strict construction, and any ambiguity must be resolved against the imposition of the tax. He argued that, the word "notice in writing" must be strictly interpreted. He implored us to find that email correspondences and notes of discussion issued by the Commissioner General cannot be interpreted to be the "notice in writing" under section 53 (1) of the TAA. Submitting in the alternative, he contended that, even if the email correspondences and the notes of discussion will be interpreted as a

notice in writing under section 53 (1) of the TAA, the record shows that, the respondent requested for 272 sample invoices and the appellant was in compliance with the notice as it submitted a total of 657 invoices more than what was requested in the notice. That, the appellant first submitted 151 invoices and again 506 invoices which was 241% of the requested samples. That, there was no proper notice for requesting all the invoices to be submitted during the audit stage as required by section 53 (1) of TAA, and that it was improper for the Commissioner General, the Board and the Tribunal refusing to admit the evidence. That, the invoices included in appendices 1-3 were part of the appellant's notice of objection and were properly filed during the objection proceedings. On the third ground, Mr. Jackson submitted that, this ground is consequential to the first two grounds. Since the Tribunal erred in upholding the decision of the respondent rejecting the appellant's evidence, the resulting VAT assessments were incorrectly issued. He prayed that the appeal be allowed, the Tribunal's decision be reversed, and the assessments be vacated. Responding, Ms. Senzia, supported the decision of the Tribunal. She submitted that, the respondent was in compliance of section 53 (1) of TAA as it properly and in accordance with the law requested for all the 8

invoices during the audit stage. She referred to page 6 of the record in exhibit A l, the first notes of discussion that, the respondent requested to verify 100 percent of all invoices. Then, the appellant requested for verification by sample invoices, the request which was accepted by the respondent. Then, the appellant requested for a reduction of the requested samples, which request was accepted and it was asked to produce 272 samples. Then, the respondent asked for a further reduction of the sample invoices to 50. Further, via exhibit A2, a response to the notes of discussion dated 2n d March 2021, the appellant requested the respondent to visit the appellant's premises for verification of the invoices. That, until 27th May 2021, when the final notes of discussion were issued, the appellant never supplied the requested sample invoices. The respondent then, issued a final assessment on 3rd June 2021 as in exhibit A4, without the requested sample invoices. To this end, the appellant issued a notice of objection attaching to it the documents/sample invoices which it failed to submit during the audit despite the repeated demands. That, section 53 (6) barred the appellant from introducing fresh evidence which were not produced at the audit stage. That, the respondent is supported by the provisions of section 53 (6) of TAA to reject the samples since they were not submitted during the audit stage. 9

Ms. Senzia argued further that, the notes of discussion and email correspondences constituted "notices in writing" within the meaning of Section 53(1) of the TAA. That, Section 53(1) of TAA does not specify the format of the notice, only that it has to be in writing. She submitted that, since the email correspondences were in writing and were served on the appellant, they qualified as valid notices. She submitted further that; the appellant cannot be heard to deny the validity of the requests when she acted upon them by requesting a reduction of the number of sample invoices to supply. The appellant failed to submit the requested 272 invoices during the audit stage, despite being given more than five months to do so. The documents were only attached to the notices of objection, and that Section 53(6) barred their production, hence it was within the purview of the law for the respondent to reject the documents so produced when filing the notice of objection. On the third ground, Ms. Senzia agreed that this ground is consequential. She submitted that, since the rejection of the evidence was lawful, the assessments for VAT were correctly issued and confirmed based on the information made available to the respondent at the time of the audit She submitted that, the appeal lacks merits and prayed that it be dismissed with costs.

Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties, the record of appeal, and the applicable law, we found the analysis of the following three issues imperative for determining the appeal: One, whether the respondent had issued a valid "notice in writing" under Section 53(1) of the TAA. Two, whether the Tribunal erred in law in upholding the Board's decision that the respondent was correct to reject the appellant's evidence under Section 53(6) of the TAA, and Three, whether the Tribunal erred in law in upholding the Board's decision that the VAT assessments were correctly issued. As regards the first issue, the central question is whether email correspondences and notes of discussion between the appellant and the respondent constituted a "notice in writing" within the meaning of Section 53(1) of the TAA. Section 53 of the TAA provides: "(1) The Commissioner General may, by a notice in writing, require a person whether or not liable for tax- (a) to produce any information prescribed in the notice; (b) to attend at the time and place stated in the notice for the purposes o f being examined by the Commissioner General i i

or by an officer authorized by the Commissioner General; or (c) to produce any document in his control during the examination. (2) ...... (3) A notice under subsection (1) shall be served by hand to the person to whom it is directed or leaving it at the person's usual place of business or abode, or by any other means as the Commissioner General may determine." The Appellant argues that, the email correspondences and notes of discussion do not constitute a "notice in writing" as contemplated by section 53 (1) of TAA. TAA does not prescribe any particular form or format for issuing a notice in writing, thus an email sent in accordance to section 53 (3) suffice to constitute a notice in writing as long as the service has been done by a mode determined by the Commissioner General, In the present case, it is on record that, on 7th January 2021 at 3:16 PM, the respondent's officer, one Mr. Haruna Myonga, sent an email to the appellant's officer, Mr. Dominic Njoroge, attaching a list of samples of invoices for verification. The appellant responded on 8th January 2021 at 9:18 AM through Mr. Jovin Boke, acknowledging receipt of the email and

requested for a reduction of the samples to 50 invoices. The Appellant's email stated, in part: "Thanks for your consideration and we appreciate the fact that you have considered our request to select the sample for validation. However, we still feel that the list o f samples is too big. You may appreciate that these were old documents of 2016. Yes, it is possible to trace 272 invoices requested by you, however this will take a long period o f time and needs too much effort... It is our humble request that you reduce the sample to at least 50 invoices." These correspondences clearly demonstrate that the appellant received the request, understood it, and acted upon it by seeking a reduction. The appellant cannot now turn around and claim that the email request was not a valid notice in writing. Furthermore, Section 53(3) expressly provides that a notice may be served "by any other means as the Commissioner General may determine." This gives the Commissioner General discretion to determine the mode of service, including by email. The Appellant never objected to the use of email for communication during the audit stage. On the contrary, the parties communicated extensively via email throughout the audit process. The appellant is now estopped from claiming that there 13

was no valid notice issued under section 53 (1) of TAA. The doctrine of estoppel was clearly explained in the English case of Pickard vs Sears (1837) 112 ER 179 where it was established that a person who acts on a particular state of affairs or allows another to do so is "estopped" from later claiming a different state of affairs to the detriment of the other party. In the present case, the appellant accepted communications from the Commissioner General by e-mail and notes of discussion, it responded to those communications, and raised no objection to that channel. The appellant is estopped from challenging the validity of mode of communications used at the time of audit. We thus, find that, the email correspondences and notes of discussion constituted valid "notices in writing" under Section 53(1) of the TAA. The Tribunal was therefore correct in rejecting the appellant's argument to the contrary. Having determined that valid notices in writing were issued, we now consider the second issue on whether it was correct for the Commissioner General to invoke Section 53(6) when he was sitting to determine the objection filed under section 62 of the Act. Section 53 (6) provides: "(6) A person who fails to submit information or documents within the time prescribed under subsection (4) or (5) shall be precluded from 14

using such document or information as evidence at the stage o f objection or appeal." The record shows that the respondent requested for 272 sample invoices in January 2021.The appellant requested the respondent to reduce the samples to 50, but is not known if the request was heeded to or rejected. Again, on record, the appellant requested the respondent to visit the premises in order to verify the existence of the invoices, as they could not be produced due to their bulkiness. Again, it is not shown on record if the second request was also rejected. There was a back-and- forth discussion between the parties on whether the requested samples were actually submitted as requested. While the appellant said it submitted a total of about 657 samples, the respondent said those invoices which were submitted were not related to the audit that was conducted at the time. In the end the respondent states that, the appellant failed to submit the invoices. This culminated to the issuance of the revised notes of discussion on 27th May 2021 found at pages 23 to 26 of the record of appeal, which reiterated that, the requested invoices had not been submitted. The Commissioner General proceeded to issue the assessments on 3rd June 2021 in the absence of the requested invoices. The Appellant was aggrieved, it presented the notice of objection on 2n d 15

July 2021, with all the invoices attached as Appendicesl-3 to the notice of objection. The Commissioner General rejected the appendices attached to the notice of objection reasoning that, these invoices were not submitted at the audit stage and could not be tendered as evidenceas they were tendered contrary to the provisions of section 53 (6)ofTAA. The decision which was upheld by the Board and the Tribunal at the first and second appeal, respectively. The Tribunal at page 26 of its Judgment in Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2024 held that: "The records show that the Respondent originally requested 100% o f all invoices and the Appellant requested for a sample and that there was a reduction to 272 invoices. However, there is no evidence that the requested 272 invoices were submitted during audit " From the record, it has not been substantiated either by the appellant or the respondent whether the documents provided by the appellant which were 657 invoices were related to the dispute at hand or for some other tax dispute between the parties. However, since there was an introduction of fresh evidence at the objection proceedings, it is obvious that, the appellant did not produce the requested sample invoices during the audit stage, and this is why it introduced them when it filed the objection. The crucial question to be determined in this appeal is 16

whether it was correct for the respondent to reject the evidence presented by the tax payer at the objection proceedings. The guiding law is the TAA. We understand that section 53 (6) was introduced to preclude production of documents at the objection stage if the documents were not produced at the audit stage. However, we are of the view that, section 53 (6) was introduced in total disregard of the provisions of sections 62 and 63 of the TAA in which the tax payer is permitted to produce all the documents it intends to rely upon on the determination of the objection. We say so because under part VI of TAA, the process of assessment involves the filing of the return under section 45 and section 53 is for the power conferred to the Commissioner General to issue notice to the tax payer to obtain information. Section 55 gives powers to the Commissioner General to investigate the tax payers, it provides: 5 5 - (1) The Commissioner General may use powers conferred on him under this Act, to audit or investigate a person's tax affairs. Then, the Commissioner General under Part VII of the TAA is empowered to assess the tax payer and issuing of notice of assessment under section 60 of the Act. The making of the order of assessment is an integral part of the process of assessment and issues of audit tax ends in Part VI. Part VI under which section 53 fall is a different chapter and do 17

not relate to a chapter dealing with dispute resolution which is covered under part VIII (sections 61 to 64). Part VIII is on dispute resolution and no steps required to be followed in Part VI or VII are required to be followed in the case of filing or determination of objection under Part VIII. The said Part VI, section 53 of the TAA contemplates the taxability determined with respect to undisclosed income only by the process of a notice to be issued by the Commissioner General to determine the primary tax liability of a tax payer. In the case that the tax payer withheld or did not disclose some information, then under section 55 of Part VI the Commissioner General is empowered to conduct an audit or conduct investigations. Thus, if the documents requested under section 53 (1) were not produced within the time stipulated in section 53 (4) and (5), the Commissioner General is still empowered under section 55 to audit the tax affairs of a tax payer by a mode provided therein. The audit ends under part VI and the nature of the orders passed under part VI and VII are different from the orders which may be passed by the Commissioner General when determining a tax dispute under Part VIII of the Act. As stated, proceedings and processes under part VIII of the Act are different from the proceedings and processes applicable during the audit or investigations under Part VI of the Act. Part VIII is a code by itself for 18

determination of the tax disputes. This is when the tax dispute arose and it does not begin with the filing of the return but by filing the notice of objection. As stated above, under the Act, the procedure for audit falls in Part VI in which section 53 falls which is different from the procedure for dispute resolution in Part VIII in which sections 61 to 64 fall. There is a clear distinction between the procedures in audit and assessment of tax and procedures for dispute settlement falling under Part VIII of the Act. Our detailed analysis of the TAA shows that Part VIII of TAA is a self- contained code, the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner General are different from the powers conferred to it when conducting audit or assessment of tax which are entailed in a different chapter of the Act. Under Part VIII of the Act, this is where the tax dispute began. The tax payer who opposes or disputes an assessment issued by the Commissioner General under Part VII of the Act is required to lodge a notice of objection. Section 62 of the Act provides: 62.- (1) A person who is aggrieved by a tax decision made by the Commissioner General may object the decision by filing an objection to the Commissioner General within thirty days from the date o f service o f the tax decision. It is at the time of filing the objection proceedings before the Commissioner General a tax payer is permitted to file all the documents 19

he intends to rely upon in the objection. Section 62 (5) and (6) of the Act provides: (5) An objection to a tax decision shall be accompanied by relevant document or information which the tax payer intends to rely upon to support his objection. (6) The information or document which the tax payer intends to rely upon shall be submitted at the time o f lodging the notice o f objection. The rights given to the tax payer to file objection proceedings under section 62 of the Act are not akin to the powers given to the Commissioner General under Part VI and VII of the Act. We agree that as the tax assessing authority, the Commissioner General is empowered under Part VI and VII of the Act to make regular assessment or investigation or audit as the case may be and the scope of enquiry would be confined to the true and full disclosure, and that the tax payer is required to give full co operation to the commissioner General during the process. Yes, it has been provided under section 53 (6) of the Act that if a document is not produced during the audit, it cannot be relied upon as evidence during the determination of the objection, however, despite the barring of production of documents in section 53 (6), there are still in existence sections 62 (5) and (6) of the same Act which permits the tax payer at the time of filing the notice of objection to file and rely to any or all 20

relevant document or information which the tax payer intends to rely upon to support his objection. Under the entire Part VIII which deals with dispute resolution, there is no cross reference to section 53(6), showing that the applicability of section 62 (5) and (6) is subject to the provisions of section 53 (6). In fact, the Commissioner General under section 63 (1) of the Act is empowered to call for any evidence or any other information as may appear necessary for the determination of the objection. Equally, the tax payer under section 63 (8), may apply for extension of time to submit evidence or documents not submitted when filing the notice of objection under section 62 of the Act. Again, section 63 (8) did not make cross reference or even a mention of section 53 (6) of the Act but entitles the tax payer to produce evidence which were not produced when filing the notice of objection. As such, there is no correlation between the procedures or restrictions entailed and introduced in Part VI of the Act when conducting an audit and investigation to procedures for determination of a tax dispute under Part VIII of the Act. The dispute resolution stage covered under Part VIII of the Act is akin to a first instance judicial proceedings where a tax dispute begins to be adjudicated and being a judicial proceeding presided over by a quasi 21

judicial officer, the Commissioner General is required to adhere to the principles of natural justice. At every stage before an objection is determined, an opportunity including filing of documents is to be granted for a fair determination of a tax dispute taking into account that it is during the objection proceedings when the tax dispute arises and a party is permitted by law to submit all the documents, he intends to rely upon in establishing and proving its case. As per section 63, it is mandatory for the Commissioner General to consider all the materials brought on record by the tax payer before passing a final assessment implying that even documents produced or made subsequent to the audit but after the exhaustion of all the rights envisaged under section 62 and 63 of the Act but before final decision is passed are to be considered by the Commissioner General. Based on the above, we are definitely of a firm finding that, the order of rejection of the appellant's evidence filed during the lodging of the notice of objection in accordance to section 62 (5) and (6) of the Act was an erroneous decision because it was in violation of principles of natural justice as a quasi-judicial order in violation of the principles of natural justice is void or of no legal value 22

If so then, the objection proceedings filed by the appellant before the Commissioner General for determination of a tax dispute is still pending before the Commissioner. The appellant is entitled to be heard on the objections filed on time. The Commissioner Genera! is duty bound to consider all the documents presented before it at the time of objection. Reading the records, it appears to us, that, though the appellant had filed the objection before the Commissioner's but there was no clear opportunity given to the appellant to demonstrate that the Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the appellant's evidence properly filed and in accordance with the law. We are of the founded opinion that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary as a concomitant of the fulfilment of natural justice that the appellant should be heard on the objections it has filed before the Commissioner. The Court of Appeal in Insignia Limited vs Commissioner General Tanzania Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2007) [2011] TZCA 246 (30 May 2011) held: "The correctness o f the assessment had to be proved by direct or documentary evidence o f the actual determination and not by a presumption imposing an evidential burden o f proof on the 23

Appellant to prove facts which were within the knowledge o f the Respondent" We also emphasized in Tanga Cement Public Limited Company vs Commissioner General Tanzania Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 161 of 2025) [2025] TZCA 1183 (13 November 2025), that a tax dispute must be decided on the record made at the objection stage. We agree that the invoices (appendices 1-3) formed part of the appellant's notice of objection and that it was an error on the part of the respondents to reject the evidence properly submitted before it. In view of the above, we hold that the Tribunal erred in affirming the Board's decision to refuse to admit the appellant's evidence. By upholding the Board's decision to reject the appellant's evidence included in Appendices 1-3 and by agreeing that the respondent correctly rejected the appellant's evidence, the Tribunal acted contrary to the provisions of section 62 and 63 of the TAA and contrary to the principles of Natural Justice. The third issue is consequential to the first two issues. Since we have found that the Tribunal incorrectly upheld the rejection of the Appellant's evidence, the VAT assessment issued for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 are fundamentally defective as they emanated from a substantial procedural and substantive errors explained hereinabove. 24

For the reasons stated above, we find that the appeal is meritorious and it is hereby allowed. The decision of the Tribunal is hereby quashed and orders set aside. The respondent is hereby ordered to determine the notice of objection against the VAT assessment for the years 2016 to 2018 filed by the appellant on 2n d July 2021, together with all the evidence submitted before it. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and each party shall bear its own costs. DATED at DODOMA this 21s t day of May, 2026. S. A. LILA JUSTICE OF APPEAL S. M. RUMANYIKA JUSTICE OF APPEAL L. A. MANSOOR JUSTICE OF APPEAL Judgment delivered virtually, this 22n d day of May, 2026 in the presence of Mr. Hamis Selemani, Mr. Loserian Manaiya, learned counsels for the Appellant, Mr. Andrew Francis, learned State Attorney for the respondent and Mr. John Gelvas, Court clerk is hereby certified as a true