Zimbabwe Revenue Authority v Conwal Chemicals Stationery & Hardware

The Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (appellant) issued Value Added Tax (VAT) assessments against Conwal Chemicals Stationery & Hardware (respondent) for the tax years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. In its objection before the Commissioner, the respondent sought the setting aside of Income Tax Act assessments and penalties imposed by the appellant. However, when the matter came before the Fiscal Appeal Court, the respondent changed the relief sought and instead challenged the Commissioner's VAT assessments for the stated period. The Fiscal Appeal Court allowed the respondent's appeal and set aside the VAT assessments on 8 September 2020. The appellant raised a point of law that the Fiscal Appeal Court was limited to considering only the grounds of objection stated in the Notice of objection, but the court a quo did not pronounce on this pivotal point.

• Whether the Fiscal Appeal Court can consider and grant relief on issues that were not raised in the Notice of objection before the Commissioner
• Whether the Fiscal Appeal Court exceeded its jurisdiction by determining matters beyond the scope of section 33(3)(a) and (b) of the Value Added Tax Act [Chapter 23:12]
• Whether the respondent could depart from the relief sought in its objection before the Commissioner when appealing to the Fiscal Appeal Court

1. The appeal was allowed with costs. 2. The judgment of the court a quo was set aside and substituted with the following: "The appeal be and is hereby dismissed"

The Fiscal Appeal Court is statutorily limited by section 33(3)(a) and (b) of the Value Added Tax Act [Chapter 23:12] to considering only the grounds of objection stated in the Notice of objection filed before the Commissioner. A party cannot seek different relief before the Fiscal Appeal Court from that which was sought in the objection before the Commissioner. Where the Fiscal Appeal Court considers and grants relief on matters not raised in the Notice of objection, it exceeds its jurisdiction and such proceedings are vitiated. The failure of the court a quo to pronounce on a pivotal jurisdictional point raised before it constitutes a gross error that vitiates the proceedings.

The court noted that although the appellant had raised 8 grounds of appeal, the first ground of appeal alone was sufficient to resolve the entire appeal, making it unnecessary to consider the remaining grounds. The court delivered its judgment ex tempore and later provided written reasons at the request of the respondent. The respondent did not appear at the hearing before the Supreme Court.

This case establishes the important principle that the Fiscal Appeal Court's jurisdiction is strictly limited by statute to the grounds of objection stated in the Notice of objection filed before the Commissioner. Parties cannot expand the scope of their appeal beyond what was originally objected to before the administrative authority. The case reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in tax appeals and confirms that courts must pronounce on pivotal jurisdictional points raised before them. It serves as a reminder that appellate courts in fiscal matters operate within strict statutory boundaries and cannot consider issues that were not properly raised at the objection stage before the Commissioner.