Applicant X v Commissioner for The South African Revenue Service (2022/12) [2022] ZATC 11; 85 SATC 382 (21 December 2022)

Applicant X v Commissioner for The South African Revenue Service (2022/12) [2022] ZATC 11; 85 SATC 382 (21 December 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to deliver the required notices to the correct SARS address as prescribed by the Tax Court Rules and the relevant public notice. Delivery to the Registrar of the Tax Court does not constitute delivery to SARS, and the Registrar is not a party to the dispute. The application was further defective for failing to serve the notice of motion on SARS as required by rule 57(3). As a result, the application for default judgment was not properly before the court and had to be dismissed. The applicant's persistence with the application despite clear advice from SARS was deemed reprehensible, justifying an award of costs on the attorney and client scale.

Citation
[2022] ZATC 11
Parties
Applicant: Applicant X; Respondent: Commissioner for The South African Revenue Service
Court
Tax Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 December 2022
Case Number
2022/12
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment Under Tax Court Rules
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
E Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Tax Administration Act, Default Judgment, Delivery of Documents, Costs on Punitive Scale
Tax Law Civil Procedure Tax Administration Act Default Judgment Delivery of Documents Costs on Punitive Scale

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant X

Applicant

Commissioner for The South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment Under Tax Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's application for default judgment was properly delivered in terms of the Tax Court Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to deliver notices to the correct SARS address rendered the application fatally defective.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded on an attorney and client scale due to the applicant's conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to deliver the required notices to the correct SARS address as prescribed by the Tax Court Rules and the relevant public notice. Delivery to the Registrar of the Tax Court does not constitute delivery to SARS, and the Registrar is not a party to the dispute. The application was further defective for failing to serve the notice of motion on SARS as required by rule 57(3). As a result, the application for default judgment was not properly before the court and had to be dismissed. The applicant's persistence with the application despite clear advice from SARS was deemed reprehensible, justifying an award of costs on the attorney and client scale.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The applicant's application is dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.