South Africa Case Law

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v ASPASA NPC and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2023-099811)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v ASPASA NPC and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2023-099811) [2025] ZAGPPHC 223 (5 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-099811

Judge

Labuschagne

The High Court dismissed SARS’s application for leave to appeal, holding it had no reasonable prospects of success on the meaning of “bulk” in the royalty legislation.

• Tax Administration Act
• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Royalty Act
• Statutory Interpretation
• Leave To Appeal
• Costs Award
• Leave-to-appeal

ASPASA NPC and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2023/099811)

ASPASA NPC and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2023/099811) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1286 (6 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023/099811

Judge

Labuschagne

The High Court found that exceptional circumstances existed for it to assume jurisdiction under section 105 of the Tax Administration Act, given the purely legal nature of the dispute and the need for industry-wide certainty. The court interpreted 'bulk' in Schedule 2 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act as referring to aggregates in the condition of shot rock at the muck pile prior to beneficiation. This interpretation aligns with the Act's purpose to set a base condition for royalty calculation and to promote beneficiation, avoiding penalisation of value addition. The applican…

Source excerpt

• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Royalty Act
• Declaratory Relief
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Interpretation Of Statute
• Strike Out Application

Richards Bay Mining (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2023-045310)

Richards Bay Mining (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2023-045310) [2024] ZAGPPHC 275 (26 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-045310

Judge

C J van der Westhuizen

The court held that section 105 of the Tax Administration Act does not apply to the present dispute, as the applicant did not challenge an assessment or decision but sought declaratory relief regarding the interpretation of section 4(2) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act. The High Court retains jurisdiction in such matters. On the merits, the court found that the plural form 'mineral resources' in section 4(2) was intentional and required an aggregated calculation of royalties for all unrefined mineral resources transferred by the same extractor, rather than a mineral-by-miner…

Source excerpt

• Tax Administration Act
• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Royalty Act
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Statutory Interpretation
• Declaratory Relief

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v United Manganese of Kalahari (Pty) Ltd (264/2019)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v United Manganese of Kalahari (Pty) Ltd (264/2019) [2020] ZASCA 16; 2020 (4) SA 428 (SCA); 82 SATC 444 (25 March 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

264/2019

Judges

Cachalia, Wallis, Mbha, Dambuza, Schippers

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 6(3)(b) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act requires the deduction of any expenditure incurred in respect of transport, insurance, and handling (TIH) costs after the mineral reaches the specified condition or to effect its disposal, regardless of whether those costs are separately specified in the contract price. The statutory language does not support SARS’s qualification that only itemised costs may be deducted. The purpose of the provision is to exclude TIH costs from the royalty base to prevent inflation of gross sales and royal…

Source excerpt

• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Royalty Act
• Royalty Calculation
• Gross Sales Determination
• Statutory Interpretation

United Manganese of Kalahari (Proprietary) Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (74158/2016)

United Manganese of Kalahari (Proprietary) Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (74158/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 628; 2018 (2) SA 275 (GP); 80 SATC 192 (3 October 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

74158/2016

Judge

P.A. Meyer

The court held that section 6(3)(b) of the Royalty Act lets UMK deduct post-condition transport, insurance and handling costs from gross sales, but refused factual relief on disputed amounts.

• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Royalty Act
• Statutory Interpretation
• Declaratory Relief
• Gross Sales Calculation
• Transport Insurance Handling Expenditure
• Statutory-interpretation