Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Marshall NO and Others (39219/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 609 (21 August 2015)
The court held that, although it remained convinced that its interpretation of section 8(5) of the Value Added Tax Act No. 89 of 1991 read with section 11(2)(n) was correct, there exists a possibility that another court may reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] ZAGPPHC 609
- Parties
- Applicant: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service; Respondent: Alan George Marshall N.O.; Respondent: Rene Pieter de Wet N.O.; Respondent: Knowledge Lwazi Mboyi N.O.; Respondent: John Andrew de Martin N.O.; Respondent: Ray Siphosomhle Sithembela Msengana N.O.; Respondent: Kovin Shunmugam Naidoo; Respondent: Samson Makhudu Gulube
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 39219/2014
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 6 May 2015.
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.
- Judges
- C Pretorius
- Legal Topics
- Value Added Tax, Leave to Appeal, Interpretation of Statutes
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
Applicant
Alan George Marshall N.O.
Respondent
Rene Pieter de Wet N.O.
Respondent
Knowledge Lwazi Mboyi N.O.
Respondent
John Andrew de Martin N.O.
Respondent
Ray Siphosomhle Sithembela Msengana N.O.
Respondent
Kovin Shunmugam Naidoo
Respondent
Samson Makhudu Gulube
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 6 May 2015.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the interpretation of section 8(5) of the Value Added Tax Act No. 89 of 1991 read with section 11(2)(n) was correct.
- 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, although it remained convinced that its interpretation of section 8(5) of the Value Added Tax Act No. 89 of 1991 read with section 11(2)(n) was correct, there exists a possibility that another court may reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was granted. Costs of the application for leave to appeal were ordered to be costs in the appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- Costs of this application to be costs in the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
43 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case number: 39219/2014
Date:
In the matter between:
THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH
AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE APPLICANT
And
ALAN GEORGE MARSHALL N.O. 1ST RESPONDENT
RENE PIETER DE WET N.O. 2ND RESPONDENT
KNOWLEDGE LWAZI MBOYI N.O. 3RD RESPONDENT
JOHN ANDREW DE MARTIN N.O. 4TH RESPONDENT
RAY SIPHOSOMHLE SITHEMBELE 5TH RESPONDENT
MSENGANA N.O. 6TH RESPONDENT
KOVIN SHUNMUGAM NAIDOO 7TH RESPONDENT
SAMSON MAKHUDU GULUBE 8TH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
(APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL)
PRETORIUS J,
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 May 2015.
[2] I have read the notice for the application for leave to appeal and have listened to the arguments by counsel.
[3] Although I am still convinced that my finding on the interpretation of section 8(5) of the Value Added Tax No. 89 of 1991 read with section 11(2) n of the Value Added Tax Act is correct, there is a possibility that another court may come to a different conclusion.
[4] Therefore I make the following order:
1. Leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal;
2. Costs of this application to be costs in the appeal.
_____________________
Judge C Pretorius
Case number
: 39219/2014
Appeal for leave to appeal
heard on
: 6 August 2015
For the Applicant
: Adv. A Sholto-Douglas/Adv Cassim
Instructed by
: STATE ATTORNEY
For the Respondent
: Adv. PA Swanepoel
Instructed by
: EDWARD NATHAN SONNENBERGS
INC
Date of Judgment
: