Ex-Director Blamed as KRA Pursues Oki General Trading Over Sh827 Million Tax Row
By Faith Wanza
Former oki general trading director Honey Khatwani
Former Oki General Trading director Honey Khatwani has been blamed for the tax troubles facing the company after the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) demanded Sh827.4 million in unpaid taxes linked to transactions undertaken during his tenure at the firm.
Documents filed before the Tax Appeals Tribunal show that the company accused Khatwani of being linked to most of the disputed transactions and withdrawals that occurred between 2020 and 2024 when he was overseeing the company’s operations and finances.
KRA is seeking to have the Tribunal uphold the tax assessment, which includes Sh258.2 million in Pay As You Earn (PAYE), Sh438.4 million in corporation tax, Sh130.6 million in VAT and Sh44,877 in withholding tax.
According to the tax authority, investigations into the company’s Ecobank and Absa accounts revealed withdrawals amounting to more than Sh604 million by directors and staff during the audit period.
“The drawings by the company’s staff and directors from company bank accounts were presumed to be earnings and were therefore subjected to PAYE,” KRA stated in its filings.
Oki General Trading, however, maintained that some of the questioned transactions were unauthorized withdrawals and misappropriated funds allegedly linked to Khatwani’s tenure as director.
The company further argued that KRA wrongly classified the disputed withdrawals as employment income despite ongoing criminal and commercial cases concerning the alleged loss of company funds.
Khatwani is separately facing criminal proceedings over allegations that he stole about Sh356 million from the company between January 2020 and June 2024 while serving as director.
Court filings claim that company funds were allegedly diverted into personal accounts and used to establish other businesses.
KRA also accused the company of understating imports, failing to account for stock reflected in customs records and claiming purchases for which customs duty had allegedly not been paid.
“The variances indicate that the company received stock items more than those accounted for as purchases in the financial statements,” KRA argued.
The authority also faulted the company for failing to provide payroll records, staff contracts, forensic audit reports, transfer pricing documents and stock reconciliations during the objection stage.
KRA confirmed the assessment through an objection decision dated July 17, 2025, saying the company had failed to provide sufficient supporting records.

Comments
Post a Comment