Naude v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (51712/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 152 (13 February 2025)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
51712/2017
Judge
E Joyini
The High Court dismissed a challenge to SARS’s disallowance of diesel refund claims, finding the applicant had not met the statutory requirements and ordering costs against him.
X and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (52/2023) [2024] ZATC 12 (2 December 2024)
Court
Tax Court
Case number
52/2023
Judge
S G Magardie
The court held that the applicants' Second Objection failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of rule 7(2)(b) of the Tax Administration Act rules. The objections were vague, lacked specificity, and did not address each assessed amount or provide the documents required to substantiate the grounds of objection. The applicants failed to provide SARS with access to the Healthbridge system and did not submit supporting documentation for their objections regarding donations tax, VAT, and unexplained deposits. The court found that SARS was justified in invalidating the objection under rule 7…
Commissioner for The South African Revenue Service v Free State Development Corporation (1222/21) [2023] ZASCA 84; 2024 (2) SA 282 (SCA); 86 SATC 289 (31 May 2023)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
1222/21
Judges
Dambuza, Zondi, Weiner, Mali, Unterhalter
The SCA held that the Tax Court could allow amendment of the taxpayer’s grounds of appeal because the new point was foreshadowed in the original objection.
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…
Alfdav Construction CC v South African Revenue Service (399/2017) [2020] ZAECPEHC 5 (11 February 2020)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Case number
399/2017
Judge
N W Gqamana
The High Court dismissed an application to vary a prior VAT order, finding rule 42 could not add penalties and interest not raised in the original case.
A Way to Explore v Commissioner for South African Revenue Services (23896/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 541; 80 SATC 241 (23 August 2017)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
23896/17
Judge
N V Khumalo
High Court review of VAT assessments refused because the taxpayer had not exhausted internal remedies; the court suspended SARS's set-off pending objection finalisation.
Mr X v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 867) [2015] ZATC 7 (26 June 2015)
Court
Tax Court
Case number
VAT867
Judges
Daffue, J. Liebenberg, B. Mathibela
Tax appeal over VAT assessment partially succeeded: output tax was remitted, but most input tax claims failed because the expenses belonged to the close corporation.
Commissioner for South African Revenue Service v Hawker Air Services (Pty) Ltd; Commissioner for South African Revenue Service v Hawker Aviation Services Partnership and Others (379/05) [2006] ZASCA 51; 2006 (4) SA 292 (SCA); [2006] 2 All SA 565 (SCA); 68 SATC 141 (31 March 2006)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
379/05
Judges
Howie, Streicher, Cameron, Nugent, Conradie
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that urgency is not a substantive ground for dismissing liquidation or sequestration applications. The Commissioner for SARS was a creditor of Hawker Air Services (Pty) Ltd and the partnership by virtue of VAT assessments, which created enforceable debts. The respondents failed to establish a bona fide and reasonable dispute regarding the existence of the debt. The court found no improper ulterior motive or impermissible collateral challenge in the Commissioner's applications. Sequestration of the partnership was competent despite one partner being a company,…
