Greyvensteyn and Other v Commissioner of South African Revenue Service and Others (B2495/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 128 (12 February 2025)

Greyvensteyn and Other v Commissioner of South African Revenue Service and Others (B2495/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 128 (12 February 2025)

The court finds that the process under sections 180 and 184(2) of the Tax Administration Act constitutes administrative action, not self-help, and is subject to judicial review under PAJA and the principle of legality. The applicant's right of access to court is not ousted, as he may challenge SARS' decision through substantive judicial review. The limitation imposed by section 186(3) on the applicant's rights to freedom of movement and trade is reasonable and justifiable under section 36 of the Constitution, given the need to secure tax collection and prevent dissipation of assets. Judicial oversight is exercised in granting such orders, and the appointment of a curator bonis ensures...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 128
Parties
Applicant: Andries Greyvensteyn; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service; Respondent: Minister of Finance; Respondent: South African Revenue Service; Respondent: Gold Kid Trading (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2025
Case Number
B2495/2023
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of four counsel on scale C.
Judges
Amien
Legal Topics
Tax Administration Act, Personal Liability for Tax Debt, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Limitation of Constitutional Rights, Preservation and Repatriation Orders, Access to Court
Tax Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Tax Administration Act Personal Liability for Tax Debt Judicial Review of Administrative Action Limitation of Constitutional Rights Preservation and Repatriation Orders +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andries Greyvensteyn

Applicant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Minister of Finance

Respondent

South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Gold Kid Trading (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sections 180, 184(2), and 186(3) of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 are unconstitutional.
  2. 2 Whether the impugned provisions violate the applicant's rights to access to court, freedom of movement, and freedom of trade under sections 34, 21, and 22 of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether SARS' process under sections 180 and 184(2) constitutes unlawful self-help or denies fair judicial process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court finds that the process under sections 180 and 184(2) of the Tax Administration Act constitutes administrative action, not self-help, and is subject to judicial review under PAJA and the principle of legality. The applicant's right of access to court is not ousted, as he may challenge SARS' decision through substantive judicial review. The limitation imposed by section 186(3) on the applicant's rights to freedom of movement and trade is reasonable and justifiable under section 36 of the Constitution, given the need to secure tax collection and prevent dissipation of assets. Judicial oversight is exercised in granting such orders, and the appointment of a curator bonis ensures...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of four counsel on scale C.

Orders

  • Sections 180, 184(2), and 186(3) of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 are declared constitutionally valid.
  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of four counsel on scale C.