Commissioner for South African Revenue Services v Hulett Aluminium (Pty) Ltd. (337/98) [2000] ZASCA 34; 2000 (4) SA 790 (SCA) (1 September 2000)

Commissioner for South African Revenue Services v Hulett Aluminium (Pty) Ltd. (337/98) [2000] ZASCA 34; 2000 (4) SA 790 (SCA) (1 September 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, even if the double deductions for scientific research expenditure were wrongly allowed due to the retroactive effect of section 23B(1), they were nevertheless permitted in accordance with a generally prevailing practice at the time. The evidence, including a departmental circular and the conduct of the Receiver of Revenue, established that double deductions were allowed pending amendment of the Act. Therefore, the third proviso to section 79(1) precluded the Commissioner from issuing additional assessments. The appeal was dismissed, and the additional assessments set aside.

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 34
Parties
Appellant: Commissioner for South African Revenue Services; Respondent: Hulett Aluminium (Pty) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 2000
Case Number
337/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Natal Income Tax Special Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Hefer, Nienaber, Howie, Olivier, Farlam
Legal Topics
Income Tax Assessment, Double Deduction, Practice Generally Prevailing, Scientific Research Expenditure
Tax Law Civil Procedure Income Tax Assessment Double Deduction Practice Generally Prevailing Scientific Research Expenditure

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commissioner for South African Revenue Services

Appellant

Hulett Aluminium (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Natal Income Tax Special Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner was entitled to issue additional assessments under section 79(1) of the Income Tax Act in light of a generally prevailing practice.
  2. 2 Whether double deductions for scientific research expenditure were permissible prior to the relevant amendments.
  3. 3 Whether the third proviso to section 79(1) precluded the Commissioner from raising additional assessments.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, even if the double deductions for scientific research expenditure were wrongly allowed due to the retroactive effect of section 23B(1), they were nevertheless permitted in accordance with a generally prevailing practice at the time. The evidence, including a departmental circular and the conduct of the Receiver of Revenue, established that double deductions were allowed pending amendment of the Act. Therefore, the third proviso to section 79(1) precluded the Commissioner from issuing additional assessments. The appeal was dismissed, and the additional assessments set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.