Carte Blanche Marketing CC and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (26244/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 253 (26 May 2017)

Carte Blanche Marketing CC and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (26244/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 253 (26 May 2017)

The court declined to decide the substantive legal issues regarding whether SARS's decision to audit constitutes administrative action or is reviewable under PAJA, finding that such questions are too complex for determination in an interlocutory application focused on discovery. The court held that, given the nature of the dispute and the allegations of mala fides, it is appropriate to err on the side of caution and allow further discovery to ensure a fair process. The respondent (SARS) is ordered to provide the applicants with copies of the documents listed in their notice or, if not in possession, to state so under oath and indicate whether it knows the whereabouts of such documents....

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 253
Parties
Applicant: Carte Blanche Marketing CC; Applicant: CBM Hot Express CC; Applicant: Michelle Jennifer Airey; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2017
Case Number
26244/2015
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Further Discovery Under Rule 35(3) in Pending Review Proceedings
Outcome
Application to compel further discovery granted; respondent ordered to provide documents or state under oath if not in possession; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
C R Jansen
Legal Topics
Discovery in Review Proceedings, Tax Administration Act, Administrative Action Definition, Rule 35 Uniform Rules, Judicial Review of Tax Decisions
Civil Procedure Tax Law Administrative Law Discovery in Review Proceedings Tax Administration Act Administrative Action Definition Rule 35 Uniform Rules Judicial Review of Tax Decisions

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carte Blanche Marketing CC

Applicant

CBM Hot Express CC

Applicant

Michelle Jennifer Airey

Applicant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Further Discovery Under Rule 35(3) in Pending Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SARS is obliged to discover further documents under Rule 35(3) in the context of a review application challenging a decision to audit under section 40 of the Tax Administration Act.
  2. 2 Whether the decision to audit constitutes administrative action for purposes of PAJA and is thus reviewable.
  3. 3 Whether the interlocutory court should decide the merits of the review or limit itself to the discovery dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to decide the substantive legal issues regarding whether SARS's decision to audit constitutes administrative action or is reviewable under PAJA, finding that such questions are too complex for determination in an interlocutory application focused on discovery. The court held that, given the nature of the dispute and the allegations of mala fides, it is appropriate to err on the side of caution and allow further discovery to ensure a fair process. The respondent (SARS) is ordered to provide the applicants with copies of the documents listed in their notice or, if not in possession, to state so under oath and indicate whether it knows the whereabouts of such documents....

Court Disposition

Application to compel further discovery granted; respondent ordered to provide documents or state under oath if not in possession; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to, within twenty days, provide the applicants copies of the documents listed in Parts A and B of the applicants' notice dated 20 May 2015 in terms of Rule 35(3), alternatively, should state under oath that it is not in possession of such document/s and should further state whether it knows...
  • Respondent must pay the applicants' costs of this application to compel.