Dankie Oupa Delwery CC V Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (A216/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1202 (14 November 2024)

Dankie Oupa Delwery CC V Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (A216/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1202 (14 November 2024)

The Court held that the appellant's logbooks did not provide sufficient particularity to distinguish eligible diesel usage for primary mining activities as required by Note 6 to Schedule 6 of the Customs and Excise Act. The descriptions in the logbooks were generic and did not enable SARS to verify that the diesel...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1202
Parties
Appellant: Dankie Oupa Delwery CC; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 2024
Case Number
A216/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application to Set Aside SARS Diesel Refund Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed on Scale C.
Judges
S. Potterill, G.N. Moshoana, N. Engelbrecht
Legal Topics
Diesel Refund Scheme, Customs and Excise Act, Recordkeeping Requirements, Eligible Purchases, Procedural Fairness
Tax Law Administrative Law Diesel Refund Scheme Customs and Excise Act Recordkeeping Requirements Eligible Purchases Procedural Fairness

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dankie Oupa Delwery CC

Appellant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application to Set Aside SARS Diesel Refund Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's logbooks complied with the requirements set out in Note 6 to Schedule 6 of the Customs and Excise Act for diesel refund claims.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with section 75(4A)(d) and (e) of the Act by affording the appellant 30 days to prove eligible diesel usage after demand.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of the appellant's physical address on supplier invoices affected entitlement to the refund.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the appellant's logbooks did not provide sufficient particularity to distinguish eligible diesel usage for primary mining activities as required by Note 6 to Schedule 6 of the Customs and Excise Act. The descriptions in the logbooks were generic and did not enable SARS to verify that the diesel was used exclusively for qualifying activities. The responsibility to prove entitlement to the refund lies with the claimant, and reliance on generic examples or analogies from SARS's website does not excuse non-compliance with statutory requirements. The Court further found that the appellant was not procedurally denied the statutory 30-day period to submit further...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed on Scale C.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed on Scale C.