Botha v Lesotho Revenue Authority (CIV/APN/289/2017) [2022] LSHC 73 (16 March 2022)

Botha v Lesotho Revenue Authority (CIV/APN/289/2017) [2022] LSHC 73 (16 March 2022)

The court held that the 22% per annum rate for additional tax is not excessive or unreasonable, considering the penal nature of additional tax, the need to ensure government revenue, and the fact that the rate is lower than some commercial lending rates and statutory caps. The application for substituting the specified rates was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2022] LSHC 73
Parties
Applicant: Martinus Christoffel Botha; Applicant: Emseebee (PTY) LTD; Respondent: Lesotho Revenue Authority; Respondent: Commissioner – General, LRA; Respondent: Attorney – General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
16 March 2022
Case Number
CIV/APN/289/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Additional Tax Penalties, Interest Rates, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Tax Law Administrative Law Income Tax Additional Tax Penalties Interest Rates Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martinus Christoffel Botha

Applicant

Emseebee (PTY) LTD

Applicant

Lesotho Revenue Authority

Respondent

Commissioner – General, LRA

Respondent

Attorney – General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the specified rates for additional tax published in Legal Notice 130 of 2004 and 65 of 2015 are unlawful for exceeding normal commercial lending rates in Lesotho as required by Section 192 of the Income Tax Act
  2. 2 Whether the penalty rate of 22% per annum is excessive or unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the 22% per annum rate for additional tax is not excessive or unreasonable, considering the penal nature of additional tax, the need to ensure government revenue, and the fact that the rate is lower than some commercial lending rates and statutory caps. The application for substituting the specified rates was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs of suit are awarded to the Applicants.