South Africa Case Law

Lion Match Company (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service (1047/2023; 1067/2023)

Lion Match Company (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service (1047/2023; 1067/2023) [2025] ZASCA 112 (28 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1047/2023; 1067/2023

Judges

Mokgohloa, Meyer, Matojane, Keightley, Norman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Lion Match failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting reconsideration of the refusal of special leave to appeal. The application for postponement was not made timeously, and the explanation provided was vague and unsatisfactory. The withdrawal of legal representatives did not automatically justify a postponement, especially where the applicant failed to act promptly or provide adequate details. The Tax Court correctly refused the postponement and proceeded in the absence of the appellant, as permitted by rule 44(7) of the Tax Court Rules. Th…

Source excerpt

• Tax Administration Act
• Postponement Principles
• Capital Gains Tax
• Tax Court Rules
• Judicial Discretion
• Costs Orders

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Virgin Mobile South Africa (Pty) Ltd (1303/2023)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Virgin Mobile South Africa (Pty) Ltd (1303/2023) [2025] ZASCA 77 (4 June 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1303/2023

Judges

Nicholls, Keightley, Musi, Windell, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that SARS cured its default by complying with a Rule 56(1) notice, so the taxpayer’s default judgment application was irregular.

• Tax Administration Act
• Default Judgment
• Irregular Step
• Condonation
• Tax Court Rules
• Rule 56 Application

PKM v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT 46151)

PKM v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT 46151) [2025] ZATC 9 (14 April 2025)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

IT 46151

Judge

Van Zyl

The Tax Court dismissed PKM’s condonation application for late amendments to its Rule 32 appeal statement, finding inadequate delay explanations and no prospects of success.

• Tax Court Rules
• Condonation
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Statement Of Grounds Of Appeal
• Tax-court-rules
• Amendment-of-pleadings

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Taxpayer C&C (IT 45791; VAT 22288)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Taxpayer C&C (IT 45791; VAT 22288) [2024] ZATC 11 (15 July 2024)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

IT 45791; VAT 22288

Judge

I Opperman

The court held that SARS's rule 31 statements for corporate income tax and VAT were delivered out of time without condonation or agreement, rendering them invalid in terms of binding precedent from VM South Africa. The taxpayer was not obliged to compel SARS to file its rule 31 statement. The court dismissed SARS's rule 30 applications and related condonation applications, finding no prospects of success and noting that the approach taken by SARS was contrary to established procedure. The court exercised its discretion under rule 56(2), postponing the taxpayer's application for default judgme…

Source excerpt

• Tax Court Rules
• Condonation For Late Filing
• Default Judgment
• Costs Orders
• Additional Assessment
• Rule 31 Statement

Taxpayer B v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT45710)

Taxpayer B v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT45710) [2022] ZATC 10; 85 SATC 388 (29 November 2022)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

IT45710

Judge

P. S. Van Zyl

The Court held that the applicant is not entitled to rely on the new ground of appeal in its rule 32 statement because the new ground constitutes a challenge to the gross income amount of the disputed assessment, which was never specifically objected to under rule 7. An objection to the deduction amount is not equivalent to an objection to the gross income amount, and rule 32(3) prohibits new grounds of objection against parts or amounts not previously objected to. The Court distinguished the present matter from ITC 1912 and Matla Coal, finding that in those cases the new grounds related to t…

Source excerpt

• Tax Court Rules
• New Grounds Of Appeal
• Income Tax Assessment
• Deductions
• Statutory Interpretation

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v SAV South Africa (Pty) Ltd (IT 25117)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v SAV South Africa (Pty) Ltd (IT 25117) [2021] ZATC 22 (18 November 2021)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

IT 25117

Judge

Mali

The Tax Court held that SARS’s late rule 31 statement, filed without condonation or extension, was invalid and the taxpayer could proceed with default judgment.

• Tax Court Rules
• Condonation
• Default Judgment
• Irregular Step
• Late Filing
• Tax-court-rules

Airports Company South Africa SOC Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (0092/2019)

Airports Company South Africa SOC Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (0092/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 354 (31 May 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

0092/2019

Judge

G Ally

The High Court allowed Airports Company South Africa to amend its tax objection, holding Tax Court Rule 42 permits use of Uniform Rule 28 where needed.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Tax Court Rules
• Income Tax Assessment
• Condonation
• Costs Discretion
• Amendment-of-pleadings

Free State Development Corporation v Commission for SARS (VAT 1999)

Free State Development Corporation v Commission for SARS (VAT 1999) [2021] ZATC 3 (30 March 2021)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT 1999

Judge

P.E. Molitsoane

The court held that the Tax Court Rules provide a specific procedure for the amendment of pleadings, namely Rule 35 read with Rule 52(7). Since these rules do not make provision for the amendment of affidavits, and the applicant sought to amend an affidavit rather than a pleading, the application was fatally flawed. The attempt to invoke Uniform Rule 6(5)(e) was rejected, as Rule 42(1) only permits reliance on the Uniform Rules where the Tax Court Rules are silent, which was not the case here. The court found that the applicant's failure to seek amendment in terms of Rule 35 was dispositive a…

Source excerpt

• Tax Court Rules
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Costs Award

Free State Development Corporation v Commission for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1999)

Free State Development Corporation v Commission for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1999) [2021] ZATC 4 (30 March 2021)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT 1999

Judge

P.E. Molitsoane

The Tax Court dismissed an interlocutory application to file a supplementary affidavit, holding that amendments must follow Rule 35 and not the Uniform Rules.

• Tax Court Rules
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Costs Award
• Tax-court-rules
• Amendment-of-pleadings

DEF Mining (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT 24578)

DEF Mining (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT 24578) [2021] ZATC 25 (27 January 2021)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

IT 24578

Judge

Collis

The court found that the applicant had previously abandoned and waived the section 11(a) ground by not including it in its Rule 32 Statement and by making admissions that the expenditure was capital in nature. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the withdrawal of these admissions or for the delay in seeking the amendment. The introduction of Annexure 'DEF' would require the respondent to address new factual matters not previously presented, causing prejudice. The applicant did not take the court into its confidence regarding the change in legal advice or the reasons f…

Source excerpt

• Income Tax Deductions
• Tax Court Rules
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Onus Of Amendment
• Capital Vs Revenue Expenditure