Far Eastern Garments Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd v South African Revenue Services (8056/06) [2009] ZAKZPHC 64 (26 November 2009)

Far Eastern Garments Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd v South African Revenue Services (8056/06) [2009] ZAKZPHC 64 (26 November 2009)

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay in seeking rescission of the judgments, and the delay was found to be inordinate and unjustifiable. The applicant did not demonstrate a bona fide defence with prospects of success, as it failed to provide cogent evidence that all manufactured goods were exported within the required period to qualify for a rebate. Statutory provisions deem the filed statements correct for recovery purposes and preclude questioning the assessments in these proceedings. The constitutional issues raised by the applicant in its replying affidavit were disregarded, as they were not made in the founding affidavit and had...

Citation
[2009] ZAKZPHC 64
Parties
Applicant: Far Eastern Garments Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: South African Revenue Services
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 2009
Case Number
8056/06
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mnguni
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Customs and Excise Duties, Vat Assessment, Sufficient Cause, Bona Fide Defence
Civil Procedure Tax Law Rescission of Judgment Customs and Excise Duties Vat Assessment Sufficient Cause Bona Fide Defence

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Far Eastern Garments Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

South African Revenue Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for its delay in seeking rescission of the judgments.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated a bona fide defence with prospects of success against the respondent's claims.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's constitutional challenge raised in the replying affidavit can be considered.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay in seeking rescission of the judgments, and the delay was found to be inordinate and unjustifiable. The applicant did not demonstrate a bona fide defence with prospects of success, as it failed to provide cogent evidence that all manufactured goods were exported within the required period to qualify for a rebate. Statutory provisions deem the filed statements correct for recovery purposes and preclude questioning the assessments in these proceedings. The constitutional issues raised by the applicant in its replying affidavit were disregarded, as they were not made in the founding affidavit and had...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed with costs.