South Africa Case Law

Appellant Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 22315)

Appellant Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 22315) [2025] ZATC 5 (25 April 2025)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT 22315

Judge

BAM

The appellant, acting as a clearing agent for BIV Gold (Pty) Ltd, paid import VAT on gold coins imported into South Africa. The VAT Act and Customs and Excise Act provide that importation by an agent is deemed to be made by the principal, and only the principal is entitled to claim input VAT. The Tax Administration Act excludes customs and excise matters from its definition of 'Tax Act', precluding the appellant from relying on representative taxpayer provisions. All customs documentation and VAT registration were in the name of BIV, and the assessment regarding the import VAT has become fina…

Source excerpt

• Input Tax Deduction
• Import Vat
• Representative Taxpayer
• Finality Of Assessment
• Customs Clearance
• Adjustment Against Output Tax

Aveng Mining Shafts and Underground v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (1192/2023)

Aveng Mining Shafts and Underground v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (1192/2023) [2025] ZASCA 20 (17 March 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1192/2023

Judges

Zondi, Keightley, Koen, Coppin, Bloem

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Aveng was not entitled to deduct input tax on accommodation and food expenses for project employees under s 17(2)(a)(i)(bb) of the Value-Added Tax Act. The Court found that Aveng's enterprise does not involve making taxable supplies of entertainment, and the entertainment expenses were not acquired for that purpose. Furthermore, Aveng did not recover the charges for entertainment directly from its employees, nor did it establish that all direct and indirect costs were covered by charges to clients. The statutory exceptions permitting input tax deductions…

Source excerpt

• Value Added Tax Act
• Input Tax Deduction
• Entertainment Expenses
• Statutory Interpretation

Tuup v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 22402)

Tuup v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 22402) [2024] ZATC 1; 87 SATC 265 (17 January 2024)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT 22402

Judges

Bishop, P Surtees, T Ledwaba

The Court held that the appellant failed to properly plead an attack on the 12.5% cap imposed by SARS under the class ruling. Even if the attack had been properly pleaded, the cap is lawful, having been based on a detailed industry investigation and agreement with HESA, and serving to prevent distorted outcomes in VAT apportionment. The Head Lease and Sub-Lease are not separate taxable supplies but form a single composite arrangement for the provision of student accommodation, an exempt supply under the VAT Act. The expenditure under the Head Lease was not incurred for making taxable supplies…

Source excerpt

• Vat Apportionment
• Input Tax Deduction
• Vat Class Ruling
• Exempt Supplies
• Administrative Review

Noah v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 22498)

Noah v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 22498) [2024] ZATC 6; 87 SATC 90 (16 January 2024)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT 22498

Judge

Myburgh AJ

The Tax Court held that SARS’s choice of a different VAT apportionment method was appealable as a refusal to approve the requested method.

• Vat Apportionment
• Tax Court Jurisdiction
• Input Tax Deduction
• Statutory Interpretation
• Administrative Rulings
• Tax-court-jurisdiction

Taxpayer ZAW v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1922)

Taxpayer ZAW v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1922) [2023] ZATC 4; 86 SATC 250 (14 March 2023)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT 1922

Judges

E S Grobbelaar, T Pasiwe, E Gouws

The court found that Taxpayer ZAW is an active investment holding company whose enterprise encompasses capital management and the provision of financial and management services to its subsidiaries for remuneration. The acquisition of Des and the related rights issue were not isolated incidents but formed part of Taxpayer ZAW's regular business activities. The services acquired for the rights issue and acquisition had a functional link to the enterprise, as they enabled Taxpayer ZAW to expand its business, provide additional management services, and earn further income. The expenses incurred w…

Source excerpt

• Input Tax Deduction
• Imported Services
• Understatement Penalty
• Enterprise Definition
• Rights Issue
• Zero Rating

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Capitec Bank Limited (94/2021)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Capitec Bank Limited (94/2021) [2022] ZASCA 97; [2022] 3 All SA 641 (SCA); 2022 (6) SA 76 (SCA); 85 SATC 311 (21 June 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

94/2021

Judges

Saldulker, Mocumie, Makgoka, Schippers, Musi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Capitec Bank Limited did not charge its customers any consideration for the loan cover supplied under its unsecured lending contracts. The loan cover was provided free of charge, as evidenced by the loan agreements and Capitec's annual report. The supply of credit is an exempt financial service under the VAT Act, and the loan cover was supplied in the course of providing credit, not as a separate taxable supply. The fees charged by Capitec (initiation and service fees) were regulated under the National Credit Act and did not include charges for insurance…

Source excerpt

• Value Added Tax
• Input Tax Deduction
• Exempt Supply
• Financial Services
• Credit Insurance
• Tax Penalty Remission

ZZZ Venture v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 2060)

ZZZ Venture v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 2060) [2021] ZATC 24; 84 SATC 336 (8 October 2021)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT 2060

Judges

Lopes, GMA Gani, JM Anthoo

The Tax Court set aside SARS’s additional VAT assessment, holding that a joint venture addendum postponed payment until cash flow permitted and fit the VAT Act proviso.

• Value Added Tax
• Additional Assessment
• Input Tax Deduction
• Contractual Payment Terms
• Tax Administration Act
• Value-added-tax

Consol Glass (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (1010/2019)

Consol Glass (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (1010/2019) [2020] ZASCA 175; 83 SATC 186 (18 December 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1010/2019

Judges

NAVSA, WALLIS, MAKGOKA, SUTHERLAND, UNTERHALTER

The SCA held that Consol Glass could not claim input tax on refinancing-related local services and had to account for VAT on imported services.

• Value Added Tax Act
• Input Tax Deduction
• Imported Services
• Taxable Supply Definition
• Exempt Supply
• Financial Services

ABC Bank Limited v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1904)

ABC Bank Limited v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1904) [2020] ZATC 25; 83 SATC 454 (26 November 2020)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT 1904

Judges

Sievers, J Hammon-Ungerer, E Gouws

The court found that ABC Bank Limited's provision of loan cover to its clients was not gratuitous but formed part of the overall consideration received for the supply of credit. Although no separate fee was charged for the loan cover, the costs were recovered through initiation and service fees, which included VAT. The supply of loan cover was made in the course and furtherance of ABC's enterprise and was linked to the provision of taxable supplies. The court rejected SARS's argument that the supply was exclusively exempt, holding that the commercial reality was that the fees charged formed p…

Source excerpt

• Value Added Tax
• Input Tax Deduction
• Contract Of Insurance
• Financial Services Exemption

Taxpayer v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (VAT2063)

Taxpayer v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (VAT2063) [2019] ZATC 2; 82 SATC 271 (15 November 2019)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT2063

Judge

K M Savage

The Tax Court dismissed an appeal seeking retrospective approval of a VAT apportionment method, holding that section 17(1) of the VAT Act limited retrospectivity.

• Vat Apportionment
• Private Binding Ruling
• Retrospective Application
• Binding General Ruling 16
• Input Tax Deduction
• Vat-apportionment