Key Highlights:

• Payment of one-third of the assessed tax under Section 51(7) TAA is a mandatory precondition for admission of an objection.
• Without an admitted objection, there can be no “objection decision” within the meaning of Section 53(1) TAA and Section 16(1) TRAA.
• TRAB’s jurisdiction is strictly limited to matters arising from valid objection decisions or other qualifying decisions of the Commissioner General.
• The absence of an objection decision rendered the appeal incompetent, and all subsequent proceedings before TRAB, TRAT, and the Court of Appeal were declared nullities.

1. INTRODUCTION

On 5 August 2025, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dodoma delivered its decision in a landmark case of JCDecaux Tanzania Limited v. Commissioner General (TRA), Civil Appeal No. 531 of 2023. The decision reaffirms the strict procedural preconditions governing tax appeals in Tanzania and clarifies that the jurisdiction of the Tax Revenue Appeals Board (TRAB) is triggered only by a valid objection decision issued by the Commissioner General of the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA). The Court nullified proceedings before both the TRAB and the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal (TRAT), striking out the appeal as a nullity for want of jurisdiction. This judgment builds upon a consistent body of precedents, including Pan African Energy I [2019] TZCA 170 and Pan African Energy II [2021] TZCA 287, which underscore the procedural rigidity in tax litigation.

2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 2020, the TRA conducted an audit of JCDecaux Tanzania Limited, an advertising company, covering the tax years 2018 – 2019. The audit resulted in a Value Added Tax (VAT) assessment (Tax Debit No. 444493228) demanding TZS 263,615,519.66 for alleged discrepancies. Pursuant to Section 51(1) of the TAA, JCDecaux lodged a notice of objection against the assessment. Alongside the objection, the company applied for a waiver of the statutory requirement under Section 51(7) TAA, which mandates that a taxpayer first to deposit one-third of the assessed tax (or the undisputed portion, whichever is greater) before the objection is admitted.

The Commissioner General rejected t request for waiver. In consequence, under Section 51(4) TAA, the objection was not admitted for consideration. Without an admitted objection or any objection decision being issued under Section 51(8) TAA, JCDecaux proceeded to appeal to the TRAB under Section 53(1) TAA and Section 7 TRAA. Both the TRAB and the TRAT upheld the TRA’s assessment, reasoning that the taxpayer had failed to satisfy the deposit requirement, thereby leaving the assessment effectively unobjected to. Dissatisfied with such decision, JCDecaux appealed to the Court of Appeal.

3. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Court distilled the dispute into two principal legal issues:

• Whether an appeal to the TRAB is competent without a valid objection decision from the Commissioner General under Section 51(8) TAA.
• Whether Section 53(1) TAA permits a taxpayer to bypass the mandatory objection procedure, including the statutory deposit requirement under Section 51(7) TAA.
4. THE DECISION

Under Section 51(7) TAA, a taxpayer must pay one-third of the assessed tax before an objection is admitted. This requirement is not a matter of administrative discretion; it is a jurisdictional threshold. As the Court observed, unless this deposit is made (or a waiver is granted), the objection cannot proceed to determination under Section 51(8) TAA. In JCDecaux’s case, the waiver request was refused, meaning the objection was never admitted, and consequently, no “objection decision” ever came into existence.

Section 53(1) TAA, read together with Section 16(1) TRAA, limits the right of appeal to tax decisions that include “an objection decision” or “any other decision or omission” of the Commissioner General. The Court interpreted “other decision or omission” narrowly, in line with its earlier rulings in Shana General Stores Ltd v. Commissioner General (TRA) [2021] TZCA 643 and Kilombero Sugar Company Ltd v. Commissioner General (TRA) [2022] TZCA 314. It held that the phrase cannot be stretched to encompass situations where the statutory prerequisites for an objection have not been met.

The Court also invoked the principle that jurisdiction is conferred by statute and cannot be assumed or implied (Pan African Energy I and II). TRAB’s powers originate from Section 7 TRAA, which clearly contemplates a valid objection decision as the starting point. Any attempt to bypass this step undermines the statutory dispute resolution framework, which is designed to allow/give the Commissioner General the first opportunity to review and, if necessary, amend the assessment administratively before engaging in litigation.

Finally, the Court dismissed any argument based on fairness or hardship. It underscored that procedural requirements in tax law serve a broader public interest in administrative efficiency, certainty, and the finality of assessments. Allowing appeals from unadmitted objections would open the floodgates to premature litigation and render Section 51(7) TAA ineffective.

5. AUTHOR’S VIEW

This judgment, while consistent with prior authority, highlights the unforgiving nature of Tanzania’s tax litigation framework. The decision sends a clear message: procedural compliance is not optional, and the statutory deposit under Section 51(7) TAA is not a negotiable formality. From a policy standpoint, the ruling strengthens administrative order and prevents the TRAB from being inundated with premature appeals. However, it also raises questions about access to justice, particularly for taxpayers facing liquidity constraints who may have meritorious objections but are financially unable to meet the deposit requirement. While the Court’s fidelity to legislative intent is commendable, there may be room for legislative reform to provide alternative safeguards, such as expanded waiver grounds, to ensure that procedural rigour does not become a barrier to substantive justice.