7 October 2025 – The South African Revenue Service (SARS) has noted media reports by Independent Newspapers today wherein it is alleged that Mr Lucky Montana MP has “charged” and “laid criminal charges” against SARS for supposedly “fraudulently doctoring a fake court judgment to justify a hefty tax bill”. Mr Montana further allegedly made public claims against SARS of “maladministration, abuse of power and a politically motivated witch hunt”.
Whereas ordinarily, SARS does not engage publicly with taxpayers that are engaged in dispute processes, the false claims must be addressed immediately. In this respect, it is absolutely essential to provide a background to this matter.
The process of debt collection in general:
The Tax Administration Act imposes on SARS the statutory obligation to ensure the efficient and effective collection of tax. This process may include the filing of a certified statement by SARS, setting out the amount of tax payable to the clerk or registrar of a competent court, where applicable in certain circumstances. In such a case, a warrant of execution is then issued – to be executed in the ordinary course of debt collection. This certified statement, lawfully given in favour of SARS, is then utilised to recover the taxpayer’s tax debt. It is settled law that such a certified statement obtained by SARS from a court with competent jurisdiction over the taxpayer is treated as a civil judgment for purposes of recovery of a tax debt. SARS emphatically denies using “fraudulently doctored court judgments to justify hefty tax bills”.
Case selection in general:
SARS is a state institution and subject to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. SARS seeks to apply the tax and customs laws it administers with fairness, in a transparent and even-handed manner without any external influence. No single person in SARS can decide who to investigate, who to audit, who to settle tax debts with and who not to. SARS relies on a variety of automated, Artificial Intelligence (AI), risk-based, data-based and research formulated case selection mechanisms. Case selection for investigation or audit is subject to oversight from various mechanisms – committees with governance rules exist to consider and execute certain activities. All these committees exist by statute, policy or governance mechanism and have very clear rules. They comprise of persons with the requisite knowledge and expertise and are themselves subject to oversight mechanisms. SARS is a semi-autonomous public institution with specific statutory obligations. SARS has consistently conducted its work independently and in a non-partisan manner that does not allow for external interference. SARS emphatically denies any “politically motivated witch hunts”.
The modus operandi of false claims to obfuscate, delay, distract, counter, and create uncalled for drama:
It has become commonplace among some who have to face the consequences of their own actions, to try to obfuscate, distract, attack and use delay tactics by abusing formal complaints, oversight and investigative mechanisms and processes, and by lodging false allegations and fake and unsubstantiated “complaints”. Our recent history is littered with examples of how persons have sought to infiltrate and manipulate the media and other public platforms to advance false claims and narratives to achieve all sorts of questionable outcomes. The same goes for abusing and subverting law enforcement agency resources solely to achieve sensationalist headlines. In this regard, SARS has been and will continue to engage with the various Criminal Justice System agencies with a view to examine how best this practice can be curbed, as it is also wasting time and precious resources of law enforcement officials.
SARS urges the media to conduct meaningful fact-checking and to ensure that they’re familiar with legal and standard administrative processes and procedures before reporting on mere claims. SARS, and the media and in fact all citizens of this country owe it to all honest, diligent, and hardworking civil servants to first determine the motive of the claim, be critical of wild claims and at the very least establish facts, before advancing one-sided claims. This does not preclude anyone from seeking any remedy permitted in law from law enforcement agencies, if there is a case to be had. In this case, there is none.
“Charging” and “laying charges”:
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is established by Section 179 of the Constitution and is the sole institution empowered to decide to criminally charge any person, institution, or legal entity and to determine what those charges may be. Nobody other than the NPA can charge SARS or any of its officials.
SARS is allowed to disclose taxpayer information publicly to disprove false allegations:
Considering the claims by Mr Montana, SARS will to the extent necessary, invoke Section 67(5) of the Tax Administration Act, which allows SARS to disclose taxpayer information that would otherwise be treated as confidential, in order to disprove the false allegation made against SARS and its processes.
SARS will make no further public comment in this regard for now, until Mr Montana has been notified in terms of section 67 (5) of the Tax Administration Act to withdraw publicly these false, scandalous and vexatious claims within the necessary time period of 24 hours. Failure to act, SARS will be compelled to disclose the otherwise confidential taxpayer information to correct the misperception.
SARS further encourages taxpayers in dispute with SARS to make use of ongoing and existing dispute platforms to air any grievances they may have.
For further information, please contact [email protected].
