Free State Development Corporation v Commission for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1999) [2021] ZATC 4 (30 March 2021)

Free State Development Corporation v Commission for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1999) [2021] ZATC 4 (30 March 2021)

The court held that the Tax Court Rules expressly provide for the amendment of pleadings through Rule 35, and there is no provision for the amendment of affidavits. Since the applicant sought to amend an affidavit rather than a pleading, and failed to follow the procedure set out in Rule 35, the application was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZATC 4
Parties
Applicant: Free State Development Corporation; Respondent: Commission for the South African Revenue Service
Court
Tax Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2021
Case Number
VAT 1999
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Amend Statement of Grounds of Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
P.E. Molitsoane
Legal Topics
Tax Court Rules, Amendment of Pleadings, Uniform Rules of Court, Costs Award
Tax Law Civil Procedure Tax Court Rules Amendment of Pleadings Uniform Rules of Court Costs Award

Source-derived case record

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

Free State Development Corporation

Applicant

Commission for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Amend Statement of Grounds of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant may amend its statement of grounds of appeal by filing a supplementary affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the Tax Court Rules permit amendment of affidavits or only pleadings.
  3. 3 Whether Uniform Rule 6(5)(e) may be invoked where the Tax Court Rules provide a specific procedure for amendment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Tax Court Rules expressly provide for the amendment of pleadings through Rule 35, and there is no provision for the amendment of affidavits. Since the applicant sought to amend an affidavit rather than a pleading, and failed to follow the procedure set out in Rule 35, the application was fatally defective. The invocation of Uniform Rule 6(5)(e) was impermissible because Rule 42(1) only allows reliance on Uniform Rules where the Tax Court Rules are silent, which was not the case here. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.