Free State Development Corporation v Commission for SARS (VAT 1999) [2021] ZATC 3 (30 March 2021)

Free State Development Corporation v Commission for SARS (VAT 1999) [2021] ZATC 3 (30 March 2021)

The court held that the Tax Court Rules provide a specific procedure for the amendment of pleadings, namely Rule 35 read with Rule 52(7). Since these rules do not make provision for the amendment of affidavits, and the applicant sought to amend an affidavit rather than a pleading, the application was fatally flawed. The attempt to invoke Uniform Rule 6(5)(e) was rejected, as Rule 42(1) only permits reliance on the Uniform Rules where the Tax Court Rules are silent, which was not the case here. The court found that the applicant's failure to seek amendment in terms of Rule 35 was dispositive and dismissed the application. Regarding costs, the court held that although costs should follow...

Citation
[2021] ZATC 3
Parties
Applicant: Free State Development Corporation; Respondent: Commission for the South African Revenue Service
Court
Tax Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2021
Case Number
VAT 1999
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Amend Statement of Grounds of Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
P.E. Molitsoane
Legal Topics
Tax Court Rules, Amendment of Pleadings, Uniform Rules of Court, Costs Award
Tax Law Civil Procedure Tax Court Rules Amendment of Pleadings Uniform Rules of Court Costs Award

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Free State Development Corporation

Applicant

Commission for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Amend Statement of Grounds of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant may amend its statement of grounds of appeal filed in the form of an affidavit under Tax Court Rule 32.
  2. 2 Whether the Tax Court Rules permit the amendment of an affidavit or only pleadings.
  3. 3 Whether Uniform Rule 6(5)(e) may be invoked to file a supplementary affidavit in Tax Court proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Tax Court Rules provide a specific procedure for the amendment of pleadings, namely Rule 35 read with Rule 52(7). Since these rules do not make provision for the amendment of affidavits, and the applicant sought to amend an affidavit rather than a pleading, the application was fatally flawed. The attempt to invoke Uniform Rule 6(5)(e) was rejected, as Rule 42(1) only permits reliance on the Uniform Rules where the Tax Court Rules are silent, which was not the case here. The court found that the applicant's failure to seek amendment in terms of Rule 35 was dispositive and dismissed the application. Regarding costs, the court held that although costs should follow...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs for the employment of two counsels are not granted.