CM v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (35/2019) [2019] ZATC 20; 83 SATC 504 (11 September 2019)

CM v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (35/2019) [2019] ZATC 20; 83 SATC 504 (11 September 2019)

The court held that SARS validly withdrew its condonation for the applicant's late objection under section 9 of the Tax Administration Act. The applicant's objection was thus invalid, and she was not entitled to pursue a notice of appeal or seek default judgment. The assessment in question was an agreed assessment under section 95(3), which is not subject to objection or appeal. The applicant's application was insupportable and constituted an abuse of process, especially given the unfounded allegations of misconduct against SARS and its attorneys. The court condoned the late filing of certain affidavits but found no merit in the substantive application. A punitive costs order was...

Citation
[2019] ZATC 20
Parties
Applicant: CM; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
Court
Tax Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 September 2019
Case Number
35/2019
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment Application / Judgment on Application for Default Judgment Following Alleged Failure by SARS to File Grounds of Assessment After Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with punitive costs order against the applicant.
Judges
Rogers
Legal Topics
Tax Administration Act, Condonation of Late Objection, Agreed Assessment, Default Judgment, Costs Order
Tax Law Civil Procedure Tax Administration Act Condonation of Late Objection Agreed Assessment Default Judgment Costs Order

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

Parties

CM

Applicant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Default Judgment Application / Judgment on Application for Default Judgment Following Alleged Failure by SARS to File Grounds of Assessment After Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SARS' withdrawal of condonation for late objection was valid and effective.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to object to an agreed assessment under section 95(3) of the Tax Administration Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's notice of appeal and application for default judgment were procedurally valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that SARS validly withdrew its condonation for the applicant's late objection under section 9 of the Tax Administration Act. The applicant's objection was thus invalid, and she was not entitled to pursue a notice of appeal or seek default judgment. The assessment in question was an agreed assessment under section 95(3), which is not subject to objection or appeal. The applicant's application was insupportable and constituted an abuse of process, especially given the unfounded allegations of misconduct against SARS and its attorneys. The court condoned the late filing of certain affidavits but found no merit in the substantive application. A punitive costs order was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with punitive costs order against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, such costs to be paid on the attorney and client scale.