Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
X v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (4/05) [2005] ZAGPHC 121 (28 November 2005)
The Tax Court held that SARS had not given adequate reasons for a VAT assessment and remitted the taxpayer’s request for reconsideration with directions.
Director-General:Department of Trade and Industry and Another v Shurlock International (Pty) Ltd (236/03) [2004] ZASCA 7; [2005] 2 All SA 11 (SCA); 2005 (2) SA 1 (SCA) (25 March 2004)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that loss of original export-incentive documents did not automatically forfeit payment under the scheme.
Toyota South Africa Motors (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (495/2000) [2002] ZASCA 27; 2002 (4) SA 281 (SCA); 64 SATC 421 (28 March 2002)
The court held that rebates under Phase VI were not amounts paid by the State, so the tax exemption claim failed. Leave to appeal and condonation were dismissed.
Chairman of the Board on Tariffs and Trade v Volkswagen South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (118/99) [2000] ZASCA 83; 2001 (2) SA 372 (SCA); [2001] 1 All SA 519 (A) (30 November 2000)
The majority held that Volkswagen South Africa (Pty) Ltd had, prior to the repeal of note 5(vi)(a)(ii), fulfilled all factual and legal requirements entitling it to approach the Board for a recommendation regarding the cession of surplus foreign currency earnings. The right to seek such a recommendation accrued before the repeal, as VW had taken all reasonable steps to advance its request and was only prevented from doing so by the Commissioner's erroneous interpretation of the calculation method. The repeal of the note did not extinguish VW's accrued right to have its application considered…
Source excerpt
South African Clothing Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a Prestige Lingerie v Director, Department of Trade and Industry and Another (491/97) [1999] ZASCA 88; 2000 (1) SA 780 (SCA) (26 November 1999)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that exporters could not change the General Export Incentive Scheme claim period with each claim; the appeal was dismissed.
Suider-Afrikaanse Kooperiewe Sitrusbeurs Bpk. v Direkteur-Generaal Handel en Nywerheid and Another (323/95) [1997] ZASCA 6; 1997 (3) SA 236 (SCA); [1997] 2 All SA 321 (A); (13 March 1997)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the time limit for lodging claims under the GEIS is peremptory and not subject to waiver by the Director-General. The relevant provision was not enacted solely for the benefit of the Director-General but serves broader fiscal and public interests, including the protection of state funds and the impartial treatment of claimants. The language of the Guidelines is clear: only timeous claims will be entertained, with a single exception for claims posted by registered or certified mail. The Director-General has no discretion to condone late claims, and the app…
Source excerpt
Dilokong Chrome Mines (Edms) Bpk. v Direkteur-Generaal van die Departement van Handel en Nywerheid (187/1990) [1992] ZASCA 74; 1992 (4) SA 1 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 209 (A) (21 May 1992)
Appeal allowed: the exporter’s chromite concentrates were held to be processed products, so the Category B exclusion for unprocessed mining products did not apply.
Explore more
