ABC Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (0092/2019) [2021] ZATC 10 (31 May 2021)

ABC Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (0092/2019) [2021] ZATC 10 (31 May 2021)

The court held that Rule 42 of the Tax Court Rules permits an applicant to seek an amendment under Uniform Rule 28 when the Tax Court Rules do not provide for such a procedure. The applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, namely a change in attorneys and new legal advice. The interests of justice require that the dispute be properly ventilated, and the respondent's objections do not outweigh the applicant's right to amend. The requirements for granting leave to amend were satisfied, and the application was granted. On costs, the court exercised its discretion and ordered that each party pay its own costs, despite the applicant's success.

Citation
[2021] ZATC 10
Parties
Appellant: ABC Limited; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
Court
Tax Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2021
Case Number
0092/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Amend Application / Judgment on Opposed Application for Leave to Amend Grounds of Objection
Outcome
Leave to amend granted; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
G Ally
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Tax Objection Procedure, Condonation, Costs Discretion
Tax Law Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Tax Objection Procedure Condonation Costs Discretion

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABC Limited

Appellant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Amend Application / Judgment on Opposed Application for Leave to Amend Grounds of Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant may amend its grounds of objection to the 2011 assessment after the prescribed time periods have expired.
  2. 2 Whether Rule 42 of the Tax Court Rules permits the use of Uniform Rule 28 for amendments in tax court proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements for granting leave to amend under the applicable principles.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 42 of the Tax Court Rules permits an applicant to seek an amendment under Uniform Rule 28 when the Tax Court Rules do not provide for such a procedure. The applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, namely a change in attorneys and new legal advice. The interests of justice require that the dispute be properly ventilated, and the respondent's objections do not outweigh the applicant's right to amend. The requirements for granting leave to amend were satisfied, and the application was granted. On costs, the court exercised its discretion and ordered that each party pay its own costs, despite the applicant's success.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • An order is granted in terms of paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 of the Notice of Motion.
  • Each party to pay their own costs of the application.