Bachulal Narbheram Vyas v Kenya Revenue Authority & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Eldoret
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
H.A. Omondi
Judgment Date
July 22, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Bachulal Narbheram Vyas v Kenya Revenue Authority & another [2020] eKLR, highlighting key legal principles and outcomes. Ideal for legal professionals and students.

Case Brief: Bachulal Narbheram Vyas v Kenya Revenue Authority & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Bachulal Narbheram Vyas v. Kenya Revenue Authority & National Bank of Kenya Limited
- Case Number: Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- Date Delivered: July 22, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): H.A. Omondi
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving several legal issues, including:
1. Whether the Petition meets the threshold for a constitutional petition.
2. Whether the Petitioner’s reliance on alleged forged deposit slips is a calculated attempt to avoid tax obligations or if he had actually made the payments.
3. What appropriate orders should be made regarding the costs of the Petition.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Petitioner, Bachulal Narbheram Vyas, alleged violations of his constitutional rights under various articles of the Constitution of Kenya, claiming that the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) had wrongfully demanded tax payments totaling KShs. 11,680,431/-. Vyas contended that he had duly paid KShs. 7,656,578/- in income tax and KShs. 1,431,493.05 in VAT/PAYE through the National Bank of Kenya (2nd Respondent) and Bank of Baroda Kenya Limited, respectively. However, KRA disputed these payments, claiming they were not reflected in their records, and initiated recovery measures, including freezing the Petitioner’s bank account.

4. Procedural History:
The Petitioner filed a constitutional petition against KRA and the National Bank of Kenya, seeking declarations of payment and relief from the agency notices and account freezes. The 1st Respondent (KRA) opposed the petition, asserting that the onus of proving tax payments lies with the taxpayer. The 2nd Respondent (National Bank of Kenya) contended that the Petitioner did not have an account with them and that the funds were deposited into KRA's collection account, which could not be verified.

5. Analysis:
Rules:
The court considered several legal provisions including Articles 40 (right to property), 47 (right to fair administrative action), and 48 (access to justice) of the Constitution of Kenya, along with the Kenya Revenue Authority Act and relevant tax regulations.

Case Law:
The court referenced previous cases, including *Semura Engineering Limited and others vs. Kenya Revenue Authority* and *Judicial Service Commission vs. Mbalu Mutave*, to underscore the KRA's obligation to comply with constitutional rights in tax collection. The case of *Anarita Karimi Njeru vs. The Attorney General* was cited to establish the threshold for constitutional petitions, emphasizing the need for precision in alleging constitutional breaches.

Application:
The court applied the rules and case law to the facts, concluding that the Petition did not meet the constitutional threshold as it lacked specificity regarding the alleged violations. It found that the Petitioner failed to prove the authenticity of the deposit slips used to substantiate his claims and that the KRA's demand for tax payment was within its mandate.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled against the Petitioner, stating that the petition lacked merit and did not fulfill the requirements for a constitutional petition. The court emphasized that the Petitioner had alternative remedies available to address his grievances regarding tax payments.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions presented in this case.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya dismissed Bachulal Narbheram Vyas's petition against the Kenya Revenue Authority and National Bank of Kenya, ruling that he failed to meet the threshold for a constitutional petition and did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of tax payment. The decision underscores the importance of precise allegations in constitutional petitions and reinforces the authority of tax collection agencies in enforcing compliance with tax laws. Costs were awarded to the Respondents.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Bachulal-Narbheram-Vyas-v-Kenya-Revenue-Authority--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1405_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries