South Africa Case Law

Poulter v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (A88/2023)

Poulter v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (A88/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 178; 87 SATC 287 (28 June 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A88/2023

Judges

Binns-Ward, Nuku, Slingers

The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The judgment in the principal proceedings was a decision 'on appeal to it' within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Superior Courts Act. Appeals from the tax court to the High Court are appeals in the ordinary strict sense, and any further appeal from the High Court's decision in such matters requires special leave from the Supreme Court of Appeal. The statutory framework of the Tax Administration Act and the procedural rules applicable to appeals…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Tax Court Jurisdiction
• Superior Courts Act Section 16
• Tax Administration Act Section 133

Poulter v CSARS (A88/2023)

Poulter v CSARS (A88/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 97; [2024] 2 All SA 876 (WCC); 86 SATC 415 (2 April 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A88/2023

Judges

Binns-Ward, Nuku, Slingers

The High Court held that the Tax Court is not a 'court of law' within the meaning of the Legal Practice Act or section 166 of the Constitution, but rather functions as an administrative tribunal or court of revision. Its primary role is to reconsider administrative decisions of the Commissioner for SARS, not to exercise judicial power as part of the judicial system. The jurisprudence and statutory framework confirm that the Tax Court is outside the judicial system and is not subject to the strictures limiting right of appearance to legal practitioners. The deletion of section 125(2) of the Ta…

Source excerpt

• Tax Court Jurisdiction
• Right Of Appearance
• Administrative Tribunal Character
• Tax Administration Act
• Lay Representation

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 D v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1518)

Taxpayer D v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1518) [2023] ZATC 5 (23 March 2023)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT 1518

Judge

Dlamini

The Tax Court held it lacked jurisdiction to reinstate withdrawn VAT and income tax appeals, and upheld SARS’s point in limine.

• Tax Court Jurisdiction
• Withdrawal Of Appeal
• Reinstatement Of Appeal
• Tax Administration Act
• Rule 42 Tax Court Rules
• Rule 49 Uniform Rules

Lion Match Company (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (301/2017)

Lion Match Company (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (301/2017) [2018] ZASCA 36; 80 SATC 383 (27 March 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

301/2017

Judges

Ponnan, Mbha, Dambuza, Mathopo, Davis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Tax Court’s dismissal of an application to set aside a Rule 31 statement was not independently appealable.

• Capital Gains Tax
• Tax Court Jurisdiction
• Tax Administration Act
• Appealability Of Interlocutory Orders
• Tax-administration-act
• Tax-court

Peolwane Properties (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (50763/16)

Peolwane Properties (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (50763/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 372 (8 June 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50763/16

Judge

Wright

The court held that the judgment of Mali J in the Tax Court dismissing the application to compel disclosure was interlocutory and not appealable under the Tax Administration Act. The applicant's attempt to amend its notice of motion was deemed fruitless, as the application failed regardless of the amendment. The proceedings initiated by the applicant after the Tax Court's decision were unnecessary and irregular, causing the respondents undue trouble and expense. The court found that the applicant's rights were adequately protected by the statutory appeal process and that any delay or cost was…

Source excerpt

• Tax Court Jurisdiction
• Disclosure Of Confidential Information
• Appealability Of Interlocutory Orders
• Costs Orders