High Court: 2025–2023

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

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 

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.