South Africa Case Law

Road Accident Fund v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (019721/2025)

Road Accident Fund v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (019721/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 336 (26 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

019721/2025

Judge

Tolmay

The High Court granted the RAF urgent interim relief preventing SARS from deducting R5.1 billion from RAF levies, pending resolution of an intergovernmental dispute.

• Diesel Refund Scheme
• Settlement Agreement
• Interim Interdict
• Road Accident Fund Levies
• Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act
• Notice Requirements

Naude v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (51712/2017)

Naude v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (51712/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 152 (13 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

51712/2017

Judge

E Joyini

The High Court dismissed a challenge to SARS’s disallowance of diesel refund claims, finding the applicant had not met the statutory requirements and ordering costs against him.

• Diesel Refund Scheme
• Customs And Excise Act
• Vat Assessment
• Tax Administration Act
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action
• Diesel-refund-scheme

Sandbaken Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (053180/2022)

Sandbaken Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (053180/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 54 (21 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

053180/2022

Judge

Woodrow

The High Court dismissed Sandbaken Boerdery’s diesel refund appeal, finding its invoices and logbooks did not meet the Customs Act’s strict rebate requirements.

• Diesel Refund Scheme
• Customs And Excise Act
• Recordkeeping Requirements
• Onus Of Proof
• Strict Compliance
• Eligible Purchases

Dankie Oupa Delwery CC V Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (A216/2023)

Dankie Oupa Delwery CC V Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (A216/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1202 (14 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A216/2023

Judges

S. Potterill, G.N. Moshoana, N. Engelbrecht

The Court held that the appellant's logbooks did not provide sufficient particularity to distinguish eligible diesel usage for primary mining activities as required by Note 6 to Schedule 6 of the Customs and Excise Act. The descriptions in the logbooks were generic and did not enable SARS to verify that the diesel was used exclusively for qualifying activities. The responsibility to prove entitlement to the refund lies with the claimant, and reliance on generic examples or analogies from SARS's website does not excuse non-compliance with statutory requirements. The Court further found that th…

Source excerpt

• Diesel Refund Scheme
• Customs And Excise Act
• Recordkeeping Requirements
• Eligible Purchases
• Procedural Fairness

Glencore Merafe Venture and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (38144/22)

Glencore Merafe Venture and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (38144/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1196 (7 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

38144/22

Judge

Y Coertzen

The court held that the Appeal Committee was entitled to raise and determine the adequacy of logbooks and record keeping, as the appeal was a wide appeal permitting a complete reconsideration of the merits. GMV was not the holder or cessionary of the necessary mining authorisation as required by Note 6(f)(ii)(cc) of Part 3 of Schedule 6 to the Customs Act, and therefore was not entitled to the diesel refunds claimed. The Commissioner’s discretion under Note 5 did not arise, as GMV was not legally entitled to the refunds. The applicants failed to provide sufficient records and logbooks to subs…

Source excerpt

• Customs And Excise Act
• Diesel Refund Scheme
• Mining Authorisation
• Record Keeping Requirements
• Commissioner Discretion
• Joint Venture Liability

Glencore Operations SA (Pty) Ltd and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (15988/2020)

Glencore Operations SA (Pty) Ltd and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (15988/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2026 (8 December 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

15988/2020

Judge

C.J. Collis

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The mining authorization was not issued to the joint venture but to Glencore, and thus the entity registered for diesel rebates did not qualify for such rebates. The Commissioner was not required to interrogate mining rights registered in another entity's name, and the court's reliance on the Graspan decision was correct. The grounds advanced by the applicants did not meet the higher threshold required for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(…

Source excerpt

• Diesel Refund Scheme
• Internal Appeal Jurisdiction
• Mining Rights Authorisation
• Superior Courts Act Section 17
• Discretion Of Commissioner

Mbali Coal (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (81950/2019)

Mbali Coal (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (81950/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1792; 84 SATC 353 (5 October 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

81950/2019

Judge

Bam

The High Court dismissed Mbali Coal’s appeal against SARS’s disallowance of diesel refund claims, holding the activities were post-mining and the records were inadequate.

• Diesel Refund Scheme
• Customs And Excise Act
• Primary Production Activities
• Recordkeeping Requirements
• Judicial Deference
• Diesel-refund-scheme

Assmang Proprietary Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others (91960/2015)

Assmang Proprietary Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others (91960/2015) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2032 (27 June 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

91960/2015

Judge

Neukircher

The court found that the applicant's proposed amendment raises a trialable constitutional issue regarding the discriminatory effect of sections 47(9)(c) and 75(1A)(f) of the Customs and Excise Act, which deny interest on diesel refunds, unlike other tax statutes. The differentiation is not justified merely because the diesel refund scheme is voluntary, and the absence of interest on refunds may violate the equality principle and constitute arbitrary deprivation of property. SARS failed to demonstrate prejudice from the amendment or that it was introduced mala fide. The court held that the ame…

Source excerpt

• Diesel Refund Scheme
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Discrimination
• Interest On Tax Refunds
• Customs And Excise Act
• Equality Principle

Assmang Proprietary Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others

Assmang Proprietary Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 516; 91960/2015 (27 June 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

91960/2015

Judge

Neukircher

The court found that the applicant's proposed amendment raises a trialable constitutional issue regarding the discriminatory effect of sections 47(9)(c) and 75(1A)(f) of the Customs and Excise Act, which deny interest on diesel refunds. The differentiation between taxpayers under the Customs Act and those under other tax statutes is not justified merely by the voluntary nature of the diesel refund scheme. The respondent failed to demonstrate prejudice from the amendment or that its introduction was mala fide. The court held that the amendment is bona fide, introduces a viable issue for trial,…

Source excerpt

• Diesel Refund Scheme
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Discrimination
• Interest On Tax Refunds
• Customs And Excise Act
• Equality Principle

Graspan Colliery SA (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (8420/18)

Graspan Colliery SA (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (8420/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 560; 83 SATC 10 (11 September 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

8420/18

Judge

Collis

The court found that, prior to the amendment of Note 6(f)(iii) on 27 May 2016, rehabilitation activities were not included as 'primary production activities in mining' for the purposes of diesel refund claims under the Customs and Excise Act. The list of qualifying activities in the note was interpreted as exhaustive, and the subsequent amendment explicitly added rehabilitation, confirming its previous exclusion. The applicant's claim for diesel refunds related to rehabilitation activities before the amendment was therefore not valid. Regarding the diesel supplied to Sandton Plant Hire, the a…

Source excerpt

• Customs And Excise Act
• Diesel Refund Scheme
• Statutory Interpretation
• Primary Production Activities
• Misrepresentation
• Commissioner Discretion