Wingate-Pearse v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (29208/15) [2019] ZAGPJHC 218; 2019 (6) SA 196 (GJ) ; [2019] 4 All SA 601 (GJ); 82 SATC 21 (17 July 2019)

Wingate-Pearse v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (29208/15) [2019] ZAGPJHC 218; 2019 (6) SA 196 (GJ) ; [2019] 4 All SA 601 (GJ); 82 SATC 21 (17 July 2019)

The applicant's review application was dismissed on both factual and legal grounds. Applying the Plascon-Evans rule, the court accepted SARS' version, finding no unlawful conduct or conspiracy in the investigation or assessment process. The alleged involvement of the HRIU and Mr Van Loggerenberg was factually refuted, and the evidence showed SARS acted within statutory powers, using reasonable methods and external expertise. The relief sought was found to be vague, moot, or not viable in law, as preliminary investigative steps do not constitute administrative action and the merits of the assessments are reserved for the Tax Court. The applicant's delay in bringing the review was...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 218
Parties
Applicant: Martin Fraser Wingate-Pearse; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service; Respondent: Johannes Hendrikus van Loggerenberg; Respondent: Ivan Visvanathan Pillay; Respondent: Minister of Finance; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: Minister of State Security; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 July 2019
Case Number
29208/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment on Review and Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Review application dismissed with costs on attorney-and-client scale; interlocutory application dismissed with costs.
Judges
P A Meyer
Legal Topics
Income Tax Act, Tax Administration Act, Judicial Review, Delay in Review, Burden of Proof, Admissibility of Evidence
Tax Law Administrative Law Income Tax Act Tax Administration Act Judicial Review Delay in Review Burden of Proof Admissibility of Evidence

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 6 Authorities cited 40 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Fraser Wingate-Pearse

Applicant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Johannes Hendrikus van Loggerenberg

Respondent

Ivan Visvanathan Pillay

Respondent

Minister of Finance

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

Minister of State Security

Respondent

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment on Review and Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SARS acted lawfully in issuing additional estimated income tax assessments for the applicant for the 1998–2005 tax years.
  2. 2 Whether the establishment and conduct of SARS' investigative unit (HRIU) was unlawful and infringed the applicant's constitutional rights.
  3. 3 Whether evidence obtained via search and seizure was inadmissible due to alleged illegality.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's review application was dismissed on both factual and legal grounds. Applying the Plascon-Evans rule, the court accepted SARS' version, finding no unlawful conduct or conspiracy in the investigation or assessment process. The alleged involvement of the HRIU and Mr Van Loggerenberg was factually refuted, and the evidence showed SARS acted within statutory powers, using reasonable methods and external expertise. The relief sought was found to be vague, moot, or not viable in law, as preliminary investigative steps do not constitute administrative action and the merits of the assessments are reserved for the Tax Court. The applicant's delay in bringing the review was...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed with costs on attorney-and-client scale; interlocutory application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed with costs on the attorney-and-client scale, including costs of two counsel for the first and fourth respondents.
  • The interlocutory application dated 4 April 2018 is dismissed; the applicant is to pay the first respondent's costs of opposition on the attorney-and-client scale, including costs of two counsel.