Sawadogo General Trading C.C. v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (33023/2017) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1766 (23 September 2023)

Sawadogo General Trading C.C. v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (33023/2017) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1766 (23 September 2023)

SARS did not comply with the court order of 19 January 2021. Its redetermination failed to correct the five material errors as directed and yielded the same amount as previously determined, indicating no recalculation was performed. SARS was not entitled to reconsider the existence of the errors, as these had already been adjudicated. Having elected to implement the order rather than pursue rectification or appeal, SARS was barred by peremption from arguing that the order was vague or unimplementable. The applicant is entitled to a compliance order and costs, but not on a punitive scale.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1766
Parties
Applicant: Sawadogo General Trading C.C.; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 2023
Case Number
33023/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Compliance With Previous Court Order
Outcome
Application granted. SARS is compelled to comply with the previous court order within ten days, failing which the applicant may pursue contempt proceedings. Costs awarded to the applicant on an attorney and client scale, including costs for two counsel.
Judges
de Vos
Legal Topics
Customs and Excise Act, Rebate Tariff Dispute, Implementation of Court Orders, Contempt of Court, Costs Award
Tax Law Administrative Law Customs and Excise Act Rebate Tariff Dispute Implementation of Court Orders Contempt 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sawadogo General Trading C.C.

Applicant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Compliance With Previous Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SARS complied with the court order dated 19 January 2021.
  2. 2 Whether SARS' redetermination constituted proper implementation of the order.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a compliance order and costs.

Ratio Decidendi

SARS did not comply with the court order of 19 January 2021. Its redetermination failed to correct the five material errors as directed and yielded the same amount as previously determined, indicating no recalculation was performed. SARS was not entitled to reconsider the existence of the errors, as these had already been adjudicated. Having elected to implement the order rather than pursue rectification or appeal, SARS was barred by peremption from arguing that the order was vague or unimplementable. The applicant is entitled to a compliance order and costs, but not on a punitive scale.

Court Disposition

Application granted. SARS is compelled to comply with the previous court order within ten days, failing which the applicant may pursue contempt proceedings. Costs awarded to the applicant on an attorney and client scale, including costs for two counsel.

Orders

  • The respondent is directed and compelled to forthwith implement or comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order of this Court dated 19 January 2021.
  • The respondent is granted ten days from the date of this order to implement or comply with the court order of 19 January 2021 referred to in paragraph (a), failing which the applicant may set the matter down upon notice for contempt of Court or other relief, with or without the amplification of the papers.