South Africa Case Law

Karino Homeland Distribution (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (21279/2023)

Karino Homeland Distribution (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (21279/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 329 (27 December 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

21279/2023

Judge

Lekhuleni

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with section 24 of the Superior Courts Act by not allowing the respondent the statutory period to enter an appearance, which is required for both action and motion proceedings. Rule 6(12) does not override this statutory requirement. On the merits, the court held that SARS is empowered under section 114 of the Customs and Excise Act to detain goods as security for all debts due, including subsequent debts, and is not limited to detaining goods equal only to the admitted debt. The 'pay now, argue later' rule applies, and the applicant's dispu…

Source excerpt

• Customs And Excise Act
• Statutory Lien
• Pay Now Argue Later
• Urgent Interdict
• Notice Requirements
• Costs Award

DSV South Africa (Pty) Ltd t/a DSV Air and Sea v Phoenix Neomed (Pty) Ltd (2022-011215)

DSV South Africa (Pty) Ltd t/a DSV Air and Sea v Phoenix Neomed (Pty) Ltd (2022-011215) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1319 (16 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022-011215

Judge

N Manoim

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against summary judgment, finding the contract legible, the defence contractually barred, and vis maior not made out.

• Summary Judgment
• Enforcement Of Contract
• Illegibility Of Documents
• Pay Now Argue Later
• Vis Maior
• Costs Order

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services v Agrizzi and Another (45008/2021)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services v Agrizzi and Another (45008/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 604 (24 July 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

45008/2021

Judge

A.C. Basson

SARS’s bid to repatriate Agrizzi’s foreign assets was dismissed, while Agrizzi succeeded in reviewing SARS’s refusal to suspend payment of the tax debt.

• Tax Administration Act
• Compulsory Repatriation Of Foreign Assets
• Suspension Of Payment
• Pay Now Argue Later
• Judicial Review Under Paja
• Tax-law

BP South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commisioner For The South African Revenue Service (A24/2021)

BP South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commisioner For The South African Revenue Service (A24/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 542 (20 July 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A24/2021

Judges

Baqwa, Tolmay, Sardiwalla

The court held that the appellant failed to satisfy the requirements for an interim interdict, as the legislative framework and case law establish that the Commissioner has the prima facie right to payment pending dispute resolution. The appellant did not demonstrate that the Commissioner misapplied the law or acted capriciously, nor did it provide sufficient evidence of irreparable harm or lack of alternative remedy. The financial position of the appellant indicated it could withstand the interim payment. The supplementary affidavit was found to be irregular as it was filed before the record…

Source excerpt

• Customs And Excise Act
• Pay Now Argue Later
• Interim Interdict
• Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings
• Rule 53 Supplementary Affidavit

Barnard Labuschagne Incorporated v South African Revenue Service and Another (CCT 60/21)

Barnard Labuschagne Incorporated v South African Revenue Service and Another (CCT 60/21) [2022] ZACC 8; 2022 (5) SA 1 (CC); 2022 (10) BCLR 1185 (CC); 84 SATC 351 (11 March 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 60/21

Judges

Madlanga, Madondo, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Pillay, Rogers, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that a certified statement filed by SARS under section 172 read with section 174 of the Tax Administration Act is susceptible to rescission. The Court found that the High Court erred by failing to follow binding precedent, including Kruger I, Kruger II, Traco Marketing, Barnard, and Metcash, all of which establish that tax judgments are in principle rescindable. The Court rejected the respondents' reliance on more recent High Court decisions that failed to address or distinguish the binding authorities. The Court further held that the applicant's grievance—that S…

Source excerpt

• Tax Judgment Rescission
• Tax Administration Act
• Pay Now Argue Later
• Binding Precedent
• Constitutional Validity Of Tax Provisions
• Scope Of Chapter 9 Taa

Modibane v South African Revenue Service (09/9651)

Modibane v South African Revenue Service (09/9651) [2011] ZAGPJHC 152; 74 SATC 398 (20 October 2011)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

09/9651

Judge

M Tsoka

The court held that the certified statement filed by SARS under section 91(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act is not a judgment in the ordinary sense and is therefore not susceptible to rescission. Even if it were considered a judgment, the applicant failed to show sufficient cause for rescission, as he was in wilful default and did not present a bona fide defence. The applicant's argument that SARS was not entitled to obtain judgment while an appeal was pending was rejected, as section 88(1) clearly provides that the obligation to pay tax and SARS's right to recover are not suspended by an appeal u…

Source excerpt

• Income Tax Assessment
• Pay Now Argue Later
• Tax Recovery Mechanisms
• Rescission Of Judgment

Capstone 556 (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner, South African Revenue Services and Another, Kluh Investments (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner, South African Revenue Services and Another (26078/2010, 8274/2011)

Capstone 556 (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner, South African Revenue Services and Another, Kluh Investments (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner, South African Revenue Services and Another (26078/2010, 8274/2011) [2011] ZAWCHC 297; 2011 (6) SA 65 (WCC); 74 SATC 20 (22 June 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

26078/2010, 8274/2011

Judge

A.G. Binns-Ward

The court held that the substituted section 88 of the Income Tax Act applies to all amounts payable on or after 1 February 2011, regardless of when the taxpayer's request for suspension was made. The Commissioner retains the power to determine and revoke suspensions, including attaching conditions, under both the old and new provisions. The mere submission of a request for suspension does not alter the payability of assessed tax, and enforcement measures may be used unless a suspension is granted. The applicants failed to establish a reasonable prospect of success on review, as their argument…

Source excerpt

• Income Tax Assessment
• Pay Now Argue Later
• Suspension Of Payment
• Judicial Review
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Constitutional Validity

Sepataka v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service (05/20445)

Sepataka v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service (05/20445) [2010] ZAGPJHC 79; 2011 (2) SA 556 (GSJ); 72 SATC 279 (31 August 2010)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

05/20445

Judge

B Spilg

The court set aside a tax judgment obtained under section 91(1)(b) while an objection to the assessment was still pending, holding the judgment was a nullity.

• Income Tax Act Section 91
• Estimated Assessment
• Pay Now Argue Later
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Income-tax-act-section-91
• Rescission-of-judgment

Metcash Trading Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (CCT3/00)

Metcash Trading Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (CCT3/00) [2000] ZACC 21; 2001 (1) SA 1109 (CC); 2001 (1) BCLR 1 (CC) (24 November 2000)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT3/00

Judges

Kriegler, Chaskalson, Langa, Goldstone, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Ngcobo, Sachs, Yacoob, Cameron

The Constitutional Court held that sections 36(1), 40(2)(a), and 40(5) of the Value-Added Tax Act do not oust the jurisdiction of the courts or constitute impermissible self-help. The 'pay now, argue later' rule is a mechanism to ensure prompt payment of VAT, which is essential for the functioning of the tax system and the public interest. The Act provides for objection, appeal to a specialist tribunal (the Special Court), and further judicial review, preserving access to courts. Section 36(1) does not prohibit judicial intervention, and the Commissioner's discretion to suspend payment is rev…

Source excerpt

• Access To Courts
• Value Added Tax Act
• Pay Now Argue Later
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action
• Limitation Of Rights
• Summary Judgment