High Court: 2025–2023

Cell C (Pty) Ltd v CSARS (30959/2019)

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether applicant’s application, for an order to stay the main application and the interlocutory application in terms of rule 35(13) pending a decision of the
Constitutional Court in the respondent’s appeal in Commissioner for the South
African Revenue Service and Another v Richards Bay Coal Terminal (Pty) Ltd
with case number 1299/2021 (“the Richards Bay matter”), may be allowed.

Biskit (Pty) Ltd v CSARS (6156/2023)

Customs and Excise Act,  1964

TAX – Search and seizure – Duty on cigarettes – Claim that cigarettes were bought duty paid – Given multiple opportunities to provide proof of duty payment but failed to do so – Notice of intent to seize did not qualify as administrative action and not reviewable – Applicant had failed to rebut presumption that excise duty had not been paid – Unable to produce proof as required by Act – SARS acted fairly – Seizure decision procedurally fair – Application dismissed – Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964, ss 89(1) and 102(4).

CSARS v ASPASA NPC and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2023/099811)

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether the judgment and order delivered against the appellant on 6 December 2024 may be appealed

Woods Warehousing (Pty) Ltd v CSARS and Others (2022/026798)

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Procedure: Whether the four letters of demand (decisions), issued by the Second to the Fourth respondents may be reviewed and set aside.

Naude v CSARS and Another (51712/2017)

Customs and Excise Act,  1964

Whether the first respondent’s tariff determination and/or decision, in terms whereof the first respondent resolved not to allow a refund of the fuel levy and Road Accident Fund levy (“the fuel levy”) leviable on distillate fuel and/or on diesel purchases in accordance with the provisions of section 75(1A) of the Customs and Excise Act, 91 of 1964 (as amended) (“the Act”) and Rebate Item 670.04 of Schedule 6, Part 3 to the Act, to the extent stated in the said Rebate Item, may be set aside.

Greyvensteyn and Other v CSARS and Others (B2495/2023)

Tax
Administration Act, 2011

Whether the respondent carried out its powers and duties of recovery through the application of sections 180, 184(2) and 186(3) of the Act.

FTTX and Energy Warehouse (Pty) Ltd v CSARS (2022/5522)

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Customs and Excise: Whether the product, an article of plastic, should be classified as a connector for optic fibre, cable and bundles contemplated in TH8536.70,
alternatively as a part thereof as contemplated in TH8538.90 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act

Sandbaken Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v CSARS and Another (053180/2022)

Customs and Excise Act,1964

Customs and Excise: Diesel rebate: The court has to decide upon four main issues:

1. Whether the invoices supplied to the respondents are in compliance with Part 39 of Schedule 6 of the Customs Act?
2. Whether the record keeping of Sandbaken, with specific reference to its logbooks for diesel usage, are in compliance with Part 3 of
   Schedule 6 of the Customs Act?
3. Whether the diesel storage records of Sandbaken are in compliance with Part 3 of Schedule 6 of the Act?
4. Whether the diesel was used in the applicant’s primary production activities in farming?

JBSA Props (Pty) Ltd and Another v CSARS and Others (5009/2023P)

Companies Act, 2008

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Value-Added Tax Act, 1991

Business rescue: Whether the applicants have established prima facie that the second applicant’s obligations to pay VAT generated by its trading during the course of business rescue were compromised in terms of the approved business plan.

Jaymat Enviro Solutions CC v CSARS (7559/2024)

Employment Tax Incentive Act, 2013

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether the applicant’s application for relief is permissible.

ASPASA NPC and Others v CSARS (2023/099811)

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether the applicants established a right to declaratory relief in terms of section 21(1)(c) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013.

Southern Ambition 1942 CC and Another v CSARS (5808/2021)

Customs and Excise Act, 
1964

Application for leave to appeal: Non-compliance with the
provisions of section 89 and section 96(1)(a) and (c) of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of
1964 – Test to be applied, reasonable prospects of success – Leave to appeal
sought and to be heard by the Full Bench of the Free State Division of the High Court.

Dankie Oupa Delwery CC v CSARS (A216/2023)

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Application for leave to appeal: Whether the appeal centring around the three issues listed below  is permissible:

1. Must the tax invoices issued to the appellant’s suppliers contain the
   appellants physical address.
2. Did the appellant’s logbooks comply with the requirements set out in
   Note 6.
3. If the record-keeping was deficient did the respondent comply with
   section 75(4A)(d) and (e) of the Act granting the appellant 30 days from
   demand to prove that the diesel in question had been used for the
   specific eligible activity.

Glencore Merafe Venture and Others v CSARS (38144/22)

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

South Africa Custodial Services (Louis Trichardt (Pty) Ltd v CSARS (A291/2022)

Superior Courts Act,  2013

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services v Shabangu and Another (121282/2023; 121275/2023)

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Alliance Fuel (Pty) Ltd and Another v CSARS (Reasons) (2024/084746)

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Fair Trade Independent Tobacco Association and Others v CSARS and Another (115176/2023; 115375/2023)

Superior Courts Act, 2013

Sasol Financing International PLC v CSARS (Leave to Appeal) (2018/58410; 2019/66502)

Superior Courts Act, 2013

CSARS v State Structured Mezzanine Investment (Pty) Ltd and Another (1824/2021)

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Piet v CSARS (3090/2023)

Tax Administration Act, 2011

TALT v CSARS (A2023/077887)

Tax Administration Act, 2011

South Africa Custodial Services (Louis Trichardt) (Pty) Ltd v CSARS (A291/2022)

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether SARS is contractually bound by the Anti-Prescription Agreement, in particular clauses
2.3 and 3.1 thereof, to issue reduced assessment in respect of the 2013 to 2016 years of assessment on the basis as had been ordered by Cloete J, in respect of the 2005 to 2012 years of assessment –  Whether the period of limitation for the issuance of assessments contained in section 99(1)(a) of the Act expired in relation to the SACS’ 2013 to 2016 years of assessment – With regard to the issue raised by SARS in its heads of argument as to whether the High Court, as opposed to the Tax Court, ought
properly to determine the dispute concerning prescription of tax assessment, the Court a quo accepted that SACS was entitled to seek relief in the High Court. Since SARS did not cross-appeal the decision of the Court a quo, the
decision stands.

Clause 2.3: ““Finality of the 2005 to 2012 years of assessment will follow the cause as set out in section 100 of the (TAA) and in this regard the objection was electronically filled on 19 July
2016 and hand-delivered at SARS’ Business and Individual Tax Centre at Megawatt Park, Sunninghill on 20 July 2016.
The letter of objection to the Disputed Assessment explain
how the deadline of 20 June 2016 is determined. The Final Decision will have an impact on the Further Years of Assessment insofar as it will indicate how the tax  computations of the Further Years of Assessment should have been prepared.”

Clause 3.1: ““The parties agree in terms of section 95(2)(c) of the TAA that the Further Years of Assessment should not prescribe
after the normal three years, but be extended and that the relevant three years’ period for the Further Years of Assessment should only start from the date of the Final Decision. This will allow SARS to either raise additional assessment or reduced assessment in respect of the Further Years of Assessment, to give effect to the Final Decision.”

CSARS v Denel Vehicle Systems (Pty) Ltd (57600/2017)

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Tax Administration Act, 2011

QI Logistis (Pty) Ltd v CSARS  (35089/2020)

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Alliance Fuel (Pty) Ltd v CSARS and Another (7453/2024)

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Turners Shipping (Pty) Ltd v CSARS (2022/059481)

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

DSV SA (PTY) LTD and Another v CSARS and Another (61072/2020)

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

CSARS v Majestic Silver Trading 275 (Pty) Ltd and Others (B445/2023)

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Atlantis Mining SA (Pty) Ltd v SARS and Another (23651/2021; 014002-2022)

Income Tax Act, 1962

Whether declaratory relief (Case number: 23651/2021) sought by applicant concerning, inter alia, the interpretation of section 36(7F) of the Income Tax Act [section 36(7F)] [declarator application] is permissible.

Applicant’s review application (Case number: 01400-2022) withdrawn, leaving aspects relating to costs.

Poulter v CSARS (A88/2023)

Superior Courts Act, 2013

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal – Tax court – Appellant’s appeal upheld at High Court – SARS seeking leave to appeal to SCA – section 16(1)(b) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 and special leave granted by SCA – whether judgment of High Court in the principal proceedings was decision on appeal to it – appeals and nature of tax court discussed – section 16(1)(b) applying – Court consequently not having jurisdiction to determine application for leave to appeal from its judgment in principal proceedings – Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, section 16(1)(b).

Matsepe v CSARS (40873/20)

Superior Courts Act,  2013

CSARS v Drs Mkhabele and Indunah Diagnostic Radiologists Inc and Others (2024/036576)

Companies Act, 2008

Inhlakanipho Consultants (Pty) Ltd v CSARS (66076/2020)

Superior Courts Act, 2013

Fair-Trade Independent Tobacco Association NPC and Others v CSARS and Another (115176/2023; 115375/2023)

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Promotion of Administrative Justice Act,  2000

Whether the applicant’s review application is permissible in relation to the following:

1. Reviewing and setting aside the Respondent’s decisions dated 20 December 2019, refusing the Applicant’s two applications for a special storage warehouse, which applications were received by the Respondent on 21 October 2019;
2. Reviewing and setting aside the Respondent’s decision dated 30 June 2020, being the Customs and Excise National Appeals Committee’s confirmation of the decision referred to in 1 above;
3.  Remitting the matters back to the Respondent for reconsideration in terms of section 8(1)(c) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act,  2008

This matter concerns the interpretation of two sections in two different statutes. The first is in respect of the scope of section 105 of the Tax Administration Act, 28 of 2011 (TAA); whether it contains an ouster of the High Court’s jurisdiction in respect of all matters related to the South African tax administration procedures and provisions. The second concerns the interpretation of the provisions of section 4(2) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act, 28 of 2008 (the Act), and thereby a determination of the scope of that section.

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Superior Courts Act, 2013

The Court considered –

1. the unopposed condonation application;
2. the late objection to the appeal record on allegations of non-compliance with the Rules;
3. whether it was appropriate for Skosana AJ to gravitate to Rule 6(5)(g) when he had already dealt with the merits of the application; and
4. the issue of the correctness of the order dismissing the application on its merits with costs.

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Whether the goods or the vehicles detained by the respondent were liable to forfeiture in terms of section 87.

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Whether the statutory appeal against determinations 33/2019 and 41/2019 are permissible –   whether an untapped nut is a threaded or non-threaded article for purposes of the Customs and Excise Tariff – whether determination 34/2019 should be corrected by determining it to be classifiable under tariff heading 7318.16.20 instead of 7318.26.30

Customs and Excise Act,  1964

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Income Tax Act, 1962

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Customs and Excise: Whether the applicants’ application for interdictory relief against first respondent, preventing it from implementing Rule 19.09, may be granted. 

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Customs and Excise: Whether the applicant’s application for a partial upliftment of a lien imposed over the applicant’s  goods by the respondent in terms of section 114 of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964, as security for an admitted debt, may be granted.

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Customs and Excise: Whether
the mining operations in relation to the diesel refunds were claimed by the applicant have been carried out in accordance with item 670.04 in Part 3 of Schedule 6 to the Act where the diesel was purchased and used in accordance
with the provisions of Note 6 as contemplated below:

1. Whether the applicant contracted de facto with its contractors on a dry basis in terms of Note 6(a)(ii).
2.  The question of whether or not the applicant made ‘eligible purchases’ as defined in Note (6)(a)(iii).
3. The question of whether the fuel purchased by the user for use and used as fuel for own primary production activities in mining, as provided for in Note 6(f)(ii) and (iii).
4. Whether there was compliance with the requirements regarding
   ‘logbooks’ as contemplated in terms of Note 6(a)(xi) for the period in respect of which such requirements were operative.
5. Whether there was compliance in terms of Note 6(q) that relates to the keeping of books, accounts and other documents for the
   purposes of the rebate item.

Superior Courts Act, 2013

Whether leave to appeal against judgment of 18 July 2022 should be granted.

Superior Courts Act, 2013

Whether leave to appeal against the judgment and order made on 17 July 2023 may be granted.

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1994: Rebate item 670. 04 – “Diesel refund” – application for setting aside determination made by SARS which had been referred in part for the hearing of oral evidence – evidence presented by the user insufficient to justify a finding that the determination whereby refund claims were disallowed should be set aside.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Appeal: Whether the Tax Court (IT 45628) erred in holding that there is a causal link between the restraint of trade payment and Mr Jordi’s past employment or the holding of office with Rappa Holdings and its affiliated companies.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether the application in respect of reserved costs of the ex parte preservation application and the anticipated return day should be granted 

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Superior Courts Act,  2013

Procedure: Confidential taxpayer information, Open Justice.

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000

Whether the decision to impose the forfeiture penalty and the appeal committee’s decision to uphold the penalty are administrative actions that comply with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act or, if not, whether they adhere to the principle of legality.

Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether relief sought in review application may be granted.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Employment Tax Incentive Act, 2013

Whether the applicant can claim interest in its capacity as agent for its various clients.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

On the anticipated return day of a provisional preservation order in terms of section 163 of the Tax Administration Act, it was partially confirmed and partially discharged. The basis for confirmation was that the tax liability was undisputed and that it had been proven that, should a court appointed curator not take control of relevant taxpayers’ assets and ancillary relief not be granted, the recovery of the long outstanding tax debt might be compromised. In the instance of the eighth respondent, where these aspects were absent, the provisional order was discharged.

Whether assets should be preserved (and liquidated by the curator) in order to discharge these debts and to prevent an under-recovery of the tax debts.

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Customs and Excise: Interlocutory application – whether the provisions of rebate item 460.24, read with rule 19A are peremptory, particularly insofar as timeous compliance with the provisions
of the rule is concerned; and whether the Commissioner has a discretion under section 75(10)(a) of Act 61 of 64 to exempt the Applicant from compliance with the conditions prescribed
by the rule.

9 October 2023

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether the appeal against the decision that ruled in the respondent’s favour is permissible.

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Customs and Excise: Diesel refunds – whether the mining activities in respect of which applicant claimed the refund were all qualifying activities; and whether applicant provided the Commissioner with necessary and sufficient records to substantiate its calculation of the diesel refund claimed.

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Whether the respondent should be compelled to comply with an order
granted by this Court on 19 January 2021. The order upheld the applicant’s appeal concerning SARS’s determination of a tariff rebate in terms of section 44(9)(e) of the Customs and Excise Act, 91 of 1975.

20 September 2023

Value-Added Tax Act, 1991

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether the relief sought by the applicants, and opposed by the responded, may be granted:

1. It is declared that payments made by the first and second
   applicants to the Citigroup home country entities, in relation to seconded
   employees, comprise the reimbursement of salary costs paid to the first and
   second applicants’ employees on behalf of the first and second applicants,
   which fall outside the scope of value- added tax, and which are exempt from
   section 7 (1) (c) of the Value-Added Tax Act No 89 of 1991 (as amended) and
   (“VAT Act”) in terms of section 14 (5)(d) of the VAT Act;
2. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicants’ costs including the costs of two counsel, where so employed;
3. Further and/or alternative relief.

18 August 2023

Income Tax Act, 1962

TAX – Assessment – Impermissible tax avoidance scheme – Erasmus assessed for dividend tax and understatement penalty – Party to impermissible arrangement involving payment of R1.2 billion by Treemo to him – Avers payment was not subject to dividend tax because Treemo had sufficient STC credits to offset tax liability – SARS argued STC credits were artificially created through transactions which lacked commercial substance for purpose of avoiding tax – Complaint based on incorrect factual premise arrived at as a result of an error of fact – This is corrected on appeal, not on review – Application struck from roll – Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, section 80A.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether or not the word “default” as appears in Rule 56(1)(a), (b), and (c) refers to the failure of SARS to file a statement in terms of Rule 31 or whether it
refers to the failure of SARS to file a statement in terms of Rule 31 out of time without availing itself of the provisions of either Rule 4 or Rule 52.

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Customs and Excise: Whether the applicant, in terms of the relevant
rebate item 670.04 read with Note 6, Schedule 6/Part 3 of the Customs Act
(“Note 6″), was entitled to claim refunds on diesel purchased by it to power
locomotives traveling on rails in its steel manufacturing plant. 

Nu Africa Duty Free Shops (Pty) Ltd v CSARS (62436/21)

Custom
and Excise Act, 1964

Whether the applicant’s application may be granted in relation to:

1. Reviewing and setting aside the respondent’s detention notice dated
   8 May 2020.
2. Reviewing and setting aside the respondents seizure notice dated 19
   January 2021.
3. Reviewing and setting aside the Custom and Excise National Appeals Committee’s decision dated 9 June 2021, when it confirmed the seizure
   as referred to in prayer to above.
4. Remitting the matter back to the Respondent for rconsideration in
   terms of section 8(1)(c)(i) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
   3 of 2000.
5. Cost of suit.
6. Further end or alternative relief.

Kusasa Refining (Proprietary) Limited v CSARSS (56820/2021)

Value-Added Tax Act, 1991

Tax Administration Act, 2011

TAX – VAT – Failure to finalise audit: Applicant complied with all requests for documentary evidence and gave cooperation – Failure to engage with applicant against the principles of natural justice and fair procedure – Decision adversely affected the applicant in having VAT refunds suspended – If the applicant not granted relief the finalisation of the audit could continue for a protracted period, the results of which will interfere with the rights of the applicant in the future – Failure by SARS to take a decision whether to finalise the VAT audit is reviewed and set aside – Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011, section 42.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether the compulsory repatriation of foreign assets held by the respondent in
Italy should be allowed; and/or whether the review application brought by the respondent as a
counter-application in the repatriation application should be allowed.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Whether the applicants had been correctly assessed by SARS – whether the assessments may be set aside because they were unlawfully made for want of compliance by SARS with its own statutes – whether the Commissioner ought to withdraw the assessments.

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000

Customs and Excise: Issues for determination:

1. Whether the respondent was entitled to impose
   custom duty, VAT, interest on VAT and penalties against the applicant when it exercised the administrative powers in terms of section 18A of the Act on the two consignments that were processed from 31 October to 03 November and on 12
   December 2014.
2. Whether the decision and inspection of the applicant’s handling of the two consignments had prescribed as it was alleged that two years had expired since they were processed; whether the respondent was barred from imposing the custom duty, tax and VAT and VAT penalty due to the lapse of the two-year period and as provided for in section 18A(2)(c) of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964.
3. Whether the conduct of the respondent in the decision to impose duty; the rejected internal appeal and the alternate dispute resolution (ADR) were invalid and reviewable for such were allegedly in violation of certain provisions section 6 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000.

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Customs and Excise: Issue for determination:

1. Whether the Third Applicant (Goedenvonden JV) was the person in possession of the necessary mining authorisation granted or ceded in terms of the Mineral Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2022, as contemplated in Note 6(f)(ii)(cc) of Part 3 of Schedule No. 6 of Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964.
2. In the alternative: Whether the Commissioner properly exercise his discretion (to allow the refunds for Goedgevonden JV in terms of Note 5 of Part 3 of Schedule No. 6 to the Customs and Excise Act.
3. Whether the National Appeal Committee (in issuing the letter dated 13 June 2019-annexure FA3 to the Founding Affidavit) had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
4. Whether the National Appeal Committee was authorised to deal with the appeal after a delay of four years.
5. Whether the National Appeal Committee (in issuing the letter dated 13 June 2019-annexure FA3) was empowered to make a new determination by adding a finding in paragraph 2(i) that the JV did not comply with Note 6(f)(ii)(cc) (concerning the mining authorisation) and by raising the demand from R5 099 995.21 to R82 984 080.00.
6. Whether the National Appeal Committee was empowered to amend the original determination in terms of section 47(9)(d) of the Customs and Excise Act (as contemplated by SARS), as part of the internal administrative appeal instituted by the Applicants under Chapter XA of the Act.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Administration and Procedure: Appeal from the Tax Court – whether undeclared receipts and deposits into taxpayer’s personal bank accounts and other accruals were income or the repayment of loans – a factual issue.

Definition of “gross income” in section 1 of Act 58 of 1962 – the total amount, in cash or otherwise, received by or accrued to or in favour of a taxpayer not of a capital nature – an assessment is in respect of a specific amount – the taxpayer is required to address every single receipt and accrual, as detailed in the finalisation of audit letter – rule 7 of the Rules of the Tax Court – a taxpayer, in his objection, must specify in detail ‘the specific amount of the disputed assessment objected to’ – section 102(1)(a) of Act 28 of 2011 – ‘[a] taxpayer bears the burden of proving that an amount, transaction, event or item is exempt or otherwise not taxable’ –
Taxpayer failed to discharge the onus in most of the itemised assessed amounts.
Appeal upheld and the order of the Tax Court set aside.

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Legal Practice Act, 2014

Vexatious Proceedings Act, 1956

Civil Procedure: Whether applicant may apply for declaratory relief as regards representation of parties and the rendering of legal services listed in section 33(1)(a) and (b) of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 by persons other than legal practitioners admitted and enrolled under the Act, and in particular whether the applicant is within his right to represent his daughter in proceedings before the Tax Court.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Income Tax Act, 1962

The appeal is twofold, namely:

1. An appeal against the refusal of the application for postponement by the appellant (The Lion Match
   Company (Pty) Ltd and referred to as “LMC”); and
2. A counter appeal against
   the refusal by the Tax Court to grant the adjustment to the assessment sought by the respondent against the assessment made by the Commissioner for the
   South African Revenue Services (the respondent a quo and in this appeal
   referred to as “CSARS”).

Income Tax Act, 1962

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Excise duty: the classification or the interpretation of the TH of the goods, that is, of the PVC panels; whether the PVC Panels were “cellular” in ‘design and structure’ as contended by the respondent and as upheld by the court a quo, thus falling under TH 3921.12, or, whether the PVC used to produce the panels, although appearing to be externally ‘cellular in construction’, were not necessarily “cellular” as contended by the Commissioner, thus falling under TH 39.16; whether the evidence of Professor John, which the appellant (the Commissioner) relied on, was admissible.

Companies Act, 1973

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Income Tax Act, 1962

Liquidation and Tax – Inability to pay debts: Whether the applicant made out a
case for the liquidation of the respondent

Companies Act, 2008 

Income Tax Act, 1962

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Business rescue: Whether the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (SARS) can set-off a tax liability of a company against the VAT refunds due to the company in
circumstances where the tax liability concerns a period prior to the company entering into business rescue, but was only determined after the company had already entered into business rescue

Income Tax Act, 1962

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Tax Law and Evidence: Depreciation allowance, finance charges, understatement penalty 

Customs and Excise Act, 1964

Whether the disallowance of the Applicant’s refund claims could be contested; whether the appeal is an appeal in a narrow or
wider sense and whether the Applicant was able to show by way of evidence that it complied with the provisions of section 64F of the Act and Rule 19A4.04 (iii) & (iv)
read with schedule 6 part 3 Note 12 item 671.11 (b) of the Act. In essence, the question to be determined is whether the Applicant is entitled to claim a refund in terms of section 75 (1)(d) of the Act.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Understatement penalty: Whether the Tax Court, having found that SARS had failed to establish that the taxpayer’s understatement of its taxable income resulted from a failure to take reasonable care completing its return, was nonetheless entitled to impose a 25% penalty, SARS having failed to plead a case for the imposition of a penalty on any ground other than the one it failed to prove.

Tax Administration Act, 2011

Procedure: Whether or not the provisional order against some of the respondents should be made final.