SARS v Glencore Operations (Pty) Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (11696/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 459 (12 February 2020)

SARS v Glencore Operations (Pty) Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (11696/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 459 (12 February 2020)

The court found that the Canyon Resources (Pty) Ltd judgment was distinguishable and did not address the interpretation of 'include', which was central to the present matter. The court considered the three possible interpretations of 'include' as set out in De Reuck and held that the third possibility did not apply to the facts of this case. The court rejected the Commissioner's argument that the statutory note's purpose was misconstrued and found no disharmony between the judgments requiring appellate intervention. The concession by the Commissioner in the answering affidavit further supported the court's conclusion. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed as the court was not...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 459
Parties
Applicant: SARS; Respondent: Glencore Operations (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2020
Case Number
11696/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Diesel Fuel Rebate, Interpretation of Include, Leave to Appeal, Costs Order
Tax Law Civil Procedure Diesel Fuel Rebate Interpretation of Include Leave to Appeal Costs Order

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SARS

Applicant

Glencore Operations (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in its interpretation of the word 'include' in the relevant statutory note.
  2. 2 Whether the Canyon Resources (Pty) Ltd judgment is distinguishable or in conflict with the present matter.
  3. 3 Whether the court misconstrued the purpose of the statutory note and the relevant enactment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Canyon Resources (Pty) Ltd judgment was distinguishable and did not address the interpretation of 'include', which was central to the present matter. The court considered the three possible interpretations of 'include' as set out in De Reuck and held that the third possibility did not apply to the facts of this case. The court rejected the Commissioner's argument that the statutory note's purpose was misconstrued and found no disharmony between the judgments requiring appellate intervention. The concession by the Commissioner in the answering affidavit further supported the court's conclusion. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed as the court was not...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The Application for Leave to Appeal is dismissed.
  • The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service is to pay the costs, including the costs consequent on the employment of senior counsel.