Rampersadh and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others (5493/2017) [2018] ZAKZPHC 36; 81 SATC 163 (27 August 2018)

Rampersadh and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others (5493/2017) [2018] ZAKZPHC 36; 81 SATC 163 (27 August 2018)

The court found that the refusal by SARS to reduce the applicants' assessments under section 93(1)(d) of the Tax Administration Act is not subject to objection or appeal under the Act, and therefore the applicants were not required to exhaust internal remedies before approaching the High Court for judicial review under PAJA. The High Court's jurisdiction was not ousted in this instance. On the merits, the applicants failed to identify specific, readily apparent undisputed errors in the assessments, and did not provide supporting documentation. The grounds for review under section 6 of PAJA were not established, as there was no error of law, no failure to consider relevant considerations,...

Citation
[2018] ZAKZPHC 36
Parties
Applicant: Manisha Rampersadh; Applicant: Hemantra Rampersadh; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service; Respondent: Jayasthri Padayachee NO; Respondent: Prinesha Govender NO
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 August 2018
Case Number
5493/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed.
Judges
Gorven
Legal Topics
Tax Administration Act, Judicial Review Under Paja, Exhaustion of Internal Remedies, Reduced Assessment, Administrative Action, Costs Award
Tax Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Tax Administration Act Judicial Review Under Paja Exhaustion of Internal Remedies Reduced Assessment Administrative Action +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

Manisha Rampersadh

Applicant

Hemantra Rampersadh

Applicant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Jayasthri Padayachee NO

Respondent

Prinesha Govender NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal by SARS to reduce the applicants' tax assessments under section 93(1)(d) of the Tax Administration Act is subject to objection or appeal under the Act.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review SARS's refusal under PAJA.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants established grounds for review under section 6 of PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the refusal by SARS to reduce the applicants' assessments under section 93(1)(d) of the Tax Administration Act is not subject to objection or appeal under the Act, and therefore the applicants were not required to exhaust internal remedies before approaching the High Court for judicial review under PAJA. The High Court's jurisdiction was not ousted in this instance. On the merits, the applicants failed to identify specific, readily apparent undisputed errors in the assessments, and did not provide supporting documentation. The grounds for review under section 6 of PAJA were not established, as there was no error of law, no failure to consider relevant considerations,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed.

Orders

  • By consent, the application against the second and third respondents is dismissed with costs.
  • The application against the first respondent is dismissed with costs, such costs to include those consequent on the employment of two counsel where this was done.