South Africa Case Law

BCD (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (0034/2019)

BCD (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (0034/2019) [2020] ZATC 17 (3 June 2020)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

0034/2019

Judge

Sigogo

The court found that the order of 13 September 2019 established a procedural mechanism for resolving the VAT dispute for the 07/2016 period. The obligations placed on the parties were clear: the applicant was to provide specified documents, and SARS was to resolve the dispute within a set timeframe. The issuance of audit findings by SARS constituted a step in resolving the dispute as envisaged by the court order, providing the applicant with the reasons for the proposed adjustment. The applicant's re-enrolment of the application for default judgment was premature, as the process outlined in t…

Source excerpt

• Tax Administration Act
• Default Judgment
• Vat Assessment
• Objection Procedure
• Court Order Interpretation

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Danwet 202 (Pty) Ltd (399/2017)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Danwet 202 (Pty) Ltd (399/2017) [2018] ZASCA 38; 2019 (5) SA 63 (SCA); 81 SATC 91 (28 March 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

399/2017

Judges

Lewis, Majiedt, Mbha, Davis, Mothle

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to grant condonation because the taxpayer failed to object to SARS’s refusal to extend time.

• Tax Administration Act
• Jurisdiction Of Tax Court
• Condonation For Late Filing
• Objection Procedure
• Appeal Period Extension
• Tax-administration-act

Coutsourides N.O and Another v Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality and Others (3565/2015)

Coutsourides N.O and Another v Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality and Others (3565/2015) [2015] ZAECPEHC 66 (8 December 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

3565/2015

Judge

Goosen

The court held that the reasons furnished by the municipal valuer—namely, that the information submitted by the objector was insufficient to justify a change in valuation—were adequate in the context of the objection, which was itself terse and lacking substantive information. The legislative framework does not require detailed reasons for the original valuation, only reasons for the decision on the objection. The applicant failed to provide a factual basis for challenging the valuation, and the municipal valuer's response sufficiently explained why the objection was dismissed. The court foun…

Source excerpt

• Adequacy Of Reasons
• Municipal Property Rates Act
• Valuation Of Property
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Objection Procedure
• Judicial Review