Stabilpave (Pty) Ltd v South African Revenue Services (615/12) [2013] ZASCA 128; 2014 (1) SA 350 (SCA); 75 SATC 347 (26 September 2013)

Stabilpave (Pty) Ltd v South African Revenue Services (615/12) [2013] ZASCA 128; 2014 (1) SA 350 (SCA); 75 SATC 347 (26 September 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the tax assessment form did not afford Stabilpave a choice as to the mode of payment. The notice was informational and did not invite the taxpayer to furnish banking details or elect a payment method. SARS dictated the method of payment, and Stabilpave did not expressly or impliedly request payment by cheque through the post. Therefore, the risk of loss of the cheque remained with SARS, and SARS did not discharge its indebtedness by posting the cheque, as the payment was not received by Stabilpave. The appeal was upheld and judgment granted in favour of Stabilpave for the amount claimed, interest, and costs.

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 128
Parties
Appellant: Stabilpave (Pty) Limited; Respondent: South African Revenue Services
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 September 2013
Case Number
615/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of the North Gauteng High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; judgment granted in favour of Stabilpave for the sum claimed, interest, and costs.
Judges
Brand, Lewis, Bosielo, Theron, Meyer
Legal Topics
Payment by Cheque, Risk of Loss in Transit, Tax Refund Dispute, Mode of Payment, Creditor Election
Tax Law Civil Procedure Payment by Cheque Risk of Loss in Transit Tax Refund Dispute Mode of Payment Creditor Election

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stabilpave (Pty) Limited

Appellant

South African Revenue Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of the North Gauteng High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tax assessment form afforded the creditor a choice as to the mode of payment.
  2. 2 Whether the creditor made a choice, expressly or by necessary implication, that payment should be effected by cheque through the post.
  3. 3 Whether the creditor thereby assumed the risk of loss of the cheque in transit.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the tax assessment form did not afford Stabilpave a choice as to the mode of payment. The notice was informational and did not invite the taxpayer to furnish banking details or elect a payment method. SARS dictated the method of payment, and Stabilpave did not expressly or impliedly request payment by cheque through the post. Therefore, the risk of loss of the cheque remained with SARS, and SARS did not discharge its indebtedness by posting the cheque, as the payment was not received by Stabilpave. The appeal was upheld and judgment granted in favour of Stabilpave for the amount claimed, interest, and costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; judgment granted in favour of Stabilpave for the sum claimed, interest, and costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with an order upholding the appeal with costs.