Case Flash: Tax Timelines Matter!
Case: Commissioner of Investigations & Enforcement v Baus Optical Co. Ltd
Court: High Court, Commercial & Tax Division
Judge: A.A. Visram, J
Date: 31st July 2025
The Right to Object and the Cost of Delay
Under Section 51 of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015 (TPA), a taxpayer who disagrees with an assessment or decision by the Commissioner has the right to object. This is a critical safeguard meant to ensure fairness and accountability in tax administration.
An objection must be made in writing, specifying precisely the grounds of disagreement and accompanied by all relevant documents. Importantly, it must be lodged within 30 days of receiving the assessment or decision.
Once lodged, Section 51(11) of the TPA requires the Commissioner to make and communicate an Objection Decision within 60 days of receiving the objection. Failure to do so has a statutory consequence; the objection is deemed allowed by operation of law.
What Happened?
The Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) issued Baus Optical Company Limited with tax assessments totaling Kshs. 624 million in VAT and income tax.
On 6th September 2022, Baus objected within the statutory timeframe. However, the Commissioner issued the Objection Decision on 8th November 2022, seemingly outside the 60-day limit.
KRA argued that it received the objection on 12th September 2022, making the decision timely. Baus disagreed, insisting that the objection was received on 6th September and that, consequently, the Commissioner’s decision was three days late, rendering the objection automatically allowed under Section 51(11).
At the Tribunal
The Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT) found that KRA had not discharged its evidentiary burden of proving when the objection was received. It therefore held that the objection was deemed allowed by law.
Feeling aggrieved, the Commissioner appealed to the High Court, arguing that the Tribunal erred by determining the issue of timelines suo moto (on its own motion), since the issue was not expressly pleaded by the parties.
Before the High Court: Can the Tribunal Raise Timelines Suo Moto?
Justice Visram affirmed that timeliness under the TPA is a jurisdictional issue. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or waiver. Therefore, if statutory timelines are breached, any subsequent action by the Commissioner is rendered null.
The Court held that even though the issue of timelines was not pleaded, the Tribunal was entitled, indeed obligated, to raise it suo moto, since it has inherent powers to address questions on jurisdiction. In essence, a tribunal cannot shut its eyes to a jurisdictional defect merely because parties failed to plead it.
Effect of Delay: Operation of Section 51(11)
The Court reiterated that failure by the Commissioner to communicate an Objection Decision within the statutory 60 days results in the objection being automatically allowed. This is a strict statutory consequence; it is not subject to discretion or equitable relief. The Court further held that since KRA could not prove the actual date of receipt of Baus’ objection, the Tribunal was correct in deeming the objection allowed.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision and dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal.
Key Takeaway
Statutory timelines in tax disputes are not procedural niceties, they define jurisdiction. The Commissioner’s powers are circumscribed by time, and any delay, however slight, invalidates subsequent action. For taxpayers and businesses, this decision reaffirms the importance of vigilantly monitoring objection timelines and asserting rights promptly when the Commissioner defaults.
Should you have any questions on this legal alert, please contact us at mail@kitllp.com.