High Court: 2028-2026

The judgments delivered in any of the High Court Divisions on this page are arranged per year and then per date of delivery.

High Court judgments delivered in another year, can be accessed through the navigation pane above.

2026
Date of Delivery	Parties Involved	Applicable Legislation	Keywords/Summary
16 April 2026	X and Another v CSARS (A117/2025)	Tax Administration Act, 2011	Estimated assessment – objection – rule 7(2)(b)(iii) – validity of objection – burden of proof – section 102 – rule 52(2)(b) – Healthbridge system – substantiating documents – dispute resolution – access to courts
25 March 2026	Trakman NO v CSARS (58927/21)	Customs and Excise Act, 1964	Whether Silver Lake was entitled to claim diesel refunds for periods prior to its registration as a diesel refund user, as stipulated under the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964
13 March 2026 New!	BASF South Africa Pty (Ltd) v CSARS (A2024/024644)	Income Tax Act, 1962	Whether the Tax Court was correct in granting SARS leave to amend its rule 31 statement and refusing BASF leave to amend its rule 32 statement – whether SARS’s proposed amendments constituted an impermissible novation of the legal and factual basis of the additional assessment on transfer pricing transaction issued under section 31(2) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (as it read in 2011).
5 March 2026	Democratic Alliance v Minister of Finance and Others (2025/045530)	Value-Added Tax Act, 1991	Constitutional Law – Section 7(4) of the VAT Act 89 of 1991 – impermissible delegation of legislative power to the Minister – Section 7(4) authorising the executive to determine rate of tax that applies across the economy – delegated power not accompanied by express statutory criteria governing the magnitude of the alteration, nor requiring parliament’s ratification within a defined short period after its exercise – No sufficiently defined statutory limits or mechanisms of prompt legislative control to ensure that the balance between executive agility and parliamentary supremacy is maintained – section 7(4) declared unconstitutional and invalid as it constitutes an impermissible delegation of legislative power to the executive. The following Frequently Asked Questions were compiled based on questions received by taxpayers after the judgment: Does the court ruling mean I don’t have to pay VAT anymore? No, VAT obligations are unchanged. The ruling by the Western Cape High Court relates to the narrow question of whether a VAT rate change announced by the Minister may take effect before a Parliamentary process. It must still be confirmed by the Constitutional Court to take effect and allows Parliament 24 months to amend the law. Is VAT now unconstitutional? No, the ruling by the Western Cape High Court relates to the narrow question of whether a VAT rate change announced by the Minister may take effect before a Parliamentary process. It must still be confirmed by the Constitutional Court to take effect and allows Parliament 24 months to amend the law. Can SARS still audit me for VAT now that the court ruled against it? Yes, the ruling is unrelated to audit. The ruling by the Western Cape High Court relates to the narrow question of whether a VAT rate change announced by the Minister may take effect before a Parliamentary process. It must still be confirmed by the Constitutional Court to take effect and allows Parliament 24 months to amend the law. I heard Parliament must fix the VAT law – does that mean VAT stops? No, VAT obligations are unchanged. The ruling by the Western Cape High Court relates to the narrow question of whether a VAT rate change announced by the Minister may take effect before a Parliamentary process. It must still be confirmed by the Constitutional Court to take effect and allows Parliament 24 months to amend the law. What happens after 24 months if Parliament doesn’t fix the VAT law? The ruling by the Western Cape High Court must still be confirmed by the Constitutional Court to take effect. If Parliament does not act within the 24 months, a VAT rate change announced by the Minister will take effect from a date approved by Parliament.
6 February 2026	Multipurpose Distributors v CSARS and Others (000317/2023)	Customs & Excise Act, 1964	Whether SARS was correct to issue the LOD amounting to R7 985 412.23 (comprising of duties, VAT, interest, penalties and forfeiture amount) – whether goods were diverted – whether the late application should be condoned.
2 February 2026	Ferreira v CSARS (2024/067035)	Tax Administration Act, 2011 Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000	Section 164(3) of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (TAA) – Pay Now Argue Later – Section 9 reconsideration request – Section 6(2)(f) of Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA) – whether SARS, acting under section 9 and section 164 of the TAA, and subject to review under section 6 of PAJA, acted lawfully and fairly when it refused to suspend the taxpayer’s obligation to pay the disputed tax debt despite the taxpayer offering substantial security through his TMM shareholding.

Table of Contents