The scope of the Tax Appeal Tribunal's (TAT) adjudicatory powers and the extent to which it is bound by the strict rules of evidence have long been subjects of discussion in Nigerian tax jurisprudence. As a specialised tribunal established to determine disputes arising from tax assessments and liabilities, the TAT occupies a unique position within Nigeria's dispute resolution framework, combining administrative expertise with quasi-judicial functions.

In this edition of our Case Note, we examine the decision of the Supreme Court in TSKJ C.I.S.U. LDA v. F.I.R.S. [2025] 19 NWLR (Pt. 2019) 93, in which the Court clarified the evidentiary standards applicable before the TAT and reaffirmed the Tribunal's role as a specialised fact-finding body in tax disputes.

Introduction

The Tax Appeal Tribunal plays an important role in resolving disputes between taxpayers and the revenue authorities. The Supreme Court's decision in TSKJ C.I.S.U. LDA v. F.I.R.S. provides valuable guidance on the extent to which the Tribunal is required to apply the provisions of the Evidence Act during its proceedings.

Relevant Facts

The dispute arose from tax assessments issued by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), now the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS), against the appellant. Dissatisfied with the assessments, the appellant challenged them before the Tax Appeal Tribunal.

During the proceedings, questions arose regarding the admissibility and consideration of certain materials relied upon by the Tribunal in determining the appellant's tax liability.

The matter eventually progressed through the appellate courts to the Supreme Court, where one of the principal issues was whether the Tax Appeal Tribunal is required to strictly apply the provisions of the Evidence Act in the same manner as conventional courts.

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court held that the Tax Appeal Tribunal is not bound to strictly apply the provisions of the Evidence Act while carrying out its statutory functions, provided that the principles of fair hearing are respected.

The Court described the Tribunal as an administrative body established to determine the correctness of tax assessments and the appropriate tax liability of taxpayers without undue emphasis on procedural technicalities.

The Supreme Court stated that:

"The Tax Appeal Tribunal is an administrative tribunal set up to determine the correctness of assessment to tax without undue fixation with formality... The last fact-finding tribunal comprising of a panel of experts who determine the appropriate tax liability on all available data without undue adherence to the strict application of the Evidence Act while ensuring compliance with the principles of fair hearing."

The Court therefore recognised the specialised nature of the Tribunal and affirmed its authority to consider all relevant materials necessary for determining tax liability, provided that both parties are afforded a fair opportunity to present their cases and respond to adverse materials.

Significantly, the Supreme Court also relied on previous decisions of the Tax Appeal Tribunal itself in reaching its conclusion.

Commentary

This decision provides welcome clarity on the procedural framework governing proceedings before the Tax Appeal Tribunal.

By acknowledging the Tribunal's status as a specialised administrative body, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that the determination of tax liability should not be hindered by unnecessary procedural technicalities where the interests of justice can be adequately protected through compliance with the requirements of fair hearing.

The decision is particularly significant because tax disputes often involve complex financial records, commercial documents, and technical data. A rigid application of evidentiary rules in every instance could impede the Tribunal's ability to effectively determine the correct tax position and, in some cases, operate to the detriment of both taxpayers and the government.

The Court's recognition of the Tax Appeal Tribunal as the final fact-finding body in tax disputes also highlights the importance of its specialised expertise and practical approach to resolving tax disputes.

Equally noteworthy is the Supreme Court's reliance on the Tribunal's own jurisprudence, demonstrating a measure of judicial confidence in the institutional competence of the Tax Appeal Tribunal.

Conclusion

Overall, the decision strikes a balance between procedural flexibility and the fundamental requirement of fair hearing.

It affirms that while the Tax Appeal Tribunal is not constrained by strict evidentiary formalities, its proceedings must remain fair, transparent, and consistent with the principles of natural justice.

The judgment therefore represents a positive development in Nigerian tax jurisprudence and is likely to guide future proceedings before both the Tax Appeal Tribunal and the courts.