Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Sasol Chevron Holdings Limited (1044/2020) [2022] ZASCA 56; 85 SATC 216 (22 April 2022)

Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Sasol Chevron Holdings Limited (1044/2020) [2022] ZASCA 56; 85 SATC 216 (22 April 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Sasol Chevron's review application was not instituted within the 180 day period prescribed by section 7(1) of PAJA. The relevant administrative decision was taken on 6 December 2017, and reasons were provided at that time. Subsequent correspondence did not constitute new reasons or a new decision. The review application was served on SARS on 25 September 2018, well outside the 180 day period. The court confirmed that 'instituted' in section 7(1) means both issuing and serving the application. Since Sasol Chevron did not apply for an extension under section 9(2) of PAJA, the High Court lacked authority to entertain the merits of the review. The delay...

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 56
Parties
Appellant: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service; Respondent: Sasol Chevron Holdings Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 April 2022
Case Number
1044/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Review application dismissed for want of compliance with section 7(1) of PAJA.
Judges
Petse, Zondi, Mocumie, Hughes, Meyer
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Judicial Review Delay, Vat Refund, Extension of Time, Service of Process, Condonation
Administrative Law Tax Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Judicial Review Delay Vat Refund Extension of Time Service of Process +1 more

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Appellant

Sasol Chevron Holdings Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the review application was instituted within the 180 day period prescribed by section 7(1) of PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of an application for extension under section 9(2) of PAJA precluded the court from entertaining the review.
  3. 3 Whether service of the review application, not merely its issue, is required to satisfy the time limitation in section 7(1) of PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Sasol Chevron's review application was not instituted within the 180 day period prescribed by section 7(1) of PAJA. The relevant administrative decision was taken on 6 December 2017, and reasons were provided at that time. Subsequent correspondence did not constitute new reasons or a new decision. The review application was served on SARS on 25 September 2018, well outside the 180 day period. The court confirmed that 'instituted' in section 7(1) means both issuing and serving the application. Since Sasol Chevron did not apply for an extension under section 9(2) of PAJA, the High Court lacked authority to entertain the merits of the review. The delay...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Review application dismissed for want of compliance with section 7(1) of PAJA.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court below is set aside and substituted with: 'The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.'