South Africa Case Law

Lion Match Company (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service (1047/2023; 1067/2023)

Lion Match Company (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service (1047/2023; 1067/2023) [2025] ZASCA 112 (28 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1047/2023; 1067/2023

Judges

Mokgohloa, Meyer, Matojane, Keightley, Norman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Lion Match failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting reconsideration of the refusal of special leave to appeal. The application for postponement was not made timeously, and the explanation provided was vague and unsatisfactory. The withdrawal of legal representatives did not automatically justify a postponement, especially where the applicant failed to act promptly or provide adequate details. The Tax Court correctly refused the postponement and proceeded in the absence of the appellant, as permitted by rule 44(7) of the Tax Court Rules. Th…

Source excerpt

• Tax Administration Act
• Postponement Principles
• Capital Gains Tax
• Tax Court Rules
• Judicial Discretion
• Costs Orders

Montana v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2023-047735)

Montana v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2023-047735) [2025] ZAGPPHC 749 (21 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-047735

Judge

Labuschagne

The High Court dismissed condonation for a late answering affidavit in sequestration proceedings and granted SARS’s strike-out application with punitive costs.

• Condonation For Late Filing
• Sequestration Proceedings
• Strike Out Application
• Punitive Costs
• Condonation
• Strike-out-application

Kerbyn Cape 2 (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner: SARS (15899/2023)

Kerbyn Cape 2 (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner: SARS (15899/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 308 (11 July 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15899/2023

Judge

Mantame

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the review application because the applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies as required by the Tax Administration Act and PAJA. The applicant did not seek a directive from the High Court to bypass the Tax Court, nor did it demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying such a departure. The mere lapse of time and inaccessibility of internal remedies do not satisfy the duty to exhaust or constitute exceptional circumstances. The applicant's repeated late objections and failure to follow prescribed procedures under the TAA and Tax Court Rules pre…

Source excerpt

• Tax Administration Act
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
• Condonation For Late Filing

Molefe v Eskom Pension and Provident Fund and Others (93895/2019)

Molefe v Eskom Pension and Provident Fund and Others (93895/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 721 (11 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

93895/2019

Judges

R G Tolmay, M J Teffo, R Francis-Subbiah

The Full Court found that the court a quo erred in resolving the dispute regarding the amount repayable by Mr Molefe to the Fund solely on the papers, without proper consideration of the divergent expert actuarial evidence and the factual disputes regarding the calculation and flow of money. The court held that the matter required referral to oral evidence before a different judge to properly determine the quantum, as the actuaries' reports and supplementary affidavits revealed substantial disputes not amenable to resolution on affidavit. The court rejected the argument that the dispute had a…

Source excerpt

• Referral To Oral Evidence
• Expert Evidence
• Pension Fund Dispute
• Tax Refund Liability
• Costs Award
• Rule 41a Mediation

Turners Shipping (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Leave to Appeal) (2022/059481)

Turners Shipping (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Leave to Appeal) (2022/059481) [2025] ZAGPPHC 677 (3 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022/059481

Judge

Bam

The High Court granted Turners Shipping leave to appeal to the Full Court, finding another court may reach a different conclusion on the statutory liability issues.

• Leave To Appeal
• Superior Courts Act
• Liability For Duties
• Definition Of Exporter
• Agency Liability
• Leave-to-appeal

Greyvensteyn v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service and Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (B2495/2023)

Greyvensteyn v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service and Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (B2495/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 707 (1 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

B2495/2023

Judge

Amien

The court found that SARS' actions under sections 180 and 184(2) of the Tax Administration Act are administrative in nature and subject to judicial review under PAJA, thus not infringing the applicant's section 34 constitutional right to access to court. The applicant's challenge was deemed an abuse of process, justifying the costs order against him. However, the court acknowledged that there is a reasonable prospect that another court could find SARS' actions to be adjudicative, potentially leading to a different conclusion regarding constitutional validity. Given the public importance of th…

Source excerpt

• Tax Administration Act
• Constitutional Validity
• Access To Court
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation
• Administrative Vs Adjudicative Action

Working on Fire v Minister of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment and Another (Leave to Appeal) (2023/112430)

Working on Fire v Minister of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment and Another (Leave to Appeal) (2023/112430) [2025] ZAGPPHC 638 (25 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023/112430

Judge

R Ramawele

The High Court granted leave to appeal in a VAT dispute, finding reasonable prospects of success on the interpretation of section 64(1) and invoice rectification.

• Leave To Appeal
• Value Added Tax
• Contractual Interpretation
• Rectification Of Invoice
• Leave-to-appeal
• Value-added-tax

Astron Energy (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (20306/2022)

Astron Energy (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (20306/2022) [2025] ZAWCHC 245 (9 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20306/2022

Judge

Moosa AJ

The High Court dismissed SARS’s exceptions to Astron Energy’s combined customs tariff appeal and PAJA review, with costs, holding the pleading was sufficiently framed.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Tariff Determination Appeal
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Exception Procedure
• Internal Administrative Appeal
• Judicial Review

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Virgin Mobile South Africa (Pty) Ltd (1303/2023)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Virgin Mobile South Africa (Pty) Ltd (1303/2023) [2025] ZASCA 77 (4 June 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1303/2023

Judges

Nicholls, Keightley, Musi, Windell, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that SARS cured its default by complying with a Rule 56(1) notice, so the taxpayer’s default judgment application was irregular.

• Tax Administration Act
• Default Judgment
• Irregular Step
• Condonation
• Tax Court Rules
• Rule 56 Application

Poseidon Operations (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service and Others (23278/2022)

Poseidon Operations (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service and Others (23278/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 539 (26 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

23278/2022

Judge

N.N Bam

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated, on the evidence, that the goods were not diverted and were delivered to the intended recipient in the DRC. The applicant's explanation for the error was credible, given the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and operational disruptions. SARS failed to conduct a fair and thorough investigation and did not substantiate its allegations of diversion or intention to mislead. The court admitted the applicant's hearsay evidence, supported by contemporaneous records and an affidavit from the mine employee, as it was reliable and c…

Source excerpt

• Customs And Excise Act
• Remission And Mitigation Of Penalties
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Condonation For Delay
• Admission Of Hearsay Evidence
• Judicial Review