South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd ("SAB") v Commissioner of the South African Revenue Services ("SARS") (3234/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 340 (28 March 2017)

South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd ("SAB") v Commissioner of the South African Revenue Services ("SARS") (3234/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 340 (28 March 2017)

The court found that, although it was not persuaded that there were reasonable prospects of success for the appeal, there existed a compelling reason to grant leave to appeal, namely the existence of conflicting judgments regarding the correct approach to tariff interpretation. The court exercised its discretion under section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act, noting that the Supreme Court of Appeal had endorsed the approach of Trollip JA rather than Miller AJA, but that the matter warranted further consideration due to the conflicting authorities. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was granted.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 340
Parties
Respondent: South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd ("SAB"); Applicant: Commissioner of the South African Revenue Services ("SARS")
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2017
Case Number
3234/15
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
Judges
Hughes
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Tariff Classification, Interpretation of Statutes, Conflicting Judgments
Tax Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Tariff Classification Interpretation of Statutes Conflicting Judgments

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd ("SAB")

Respondent

Commissioner of the South African Revenue Services ("SARS")

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success for the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether there are compelling reasons, including conflicting judgments, to grant leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although it was not persuaded that there were reasonable prospects of success for the appeal, there existed a compelling reason to grant leave to appeal, namely the existence of conflicting judgments regarding the correct approach to tariff interpretation. The court exercised its discretion under section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act, noting that the Supreme Court of Appeal had endorsed the approach of Trollip JA rather than Miller AJA, but that the matter warranted further consideration due to the conflicting authorities. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was granted.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal succeeds.
  • Costs are to be costs in the appeal.