case law
- High Court of South Africa
(Gauteng Division, Pretoria) | Absa Bank Limited and Another v
CSARS (21825/19)
- SARS officials issued a section 80J
of the Income Tax Act, 1962 ("ITA")
notice to each of the applicants.
- Each of the applicants addressed a
request to the Commissioner in terms of section 9 of the Tax
Administration Act, 2011 (the "TAA"),
requesting that the relevant 80J Notice be withdrawn on various
grounds, which section 9 requests were refused by SARS.
- The applicants launched the main
application seeking to review and set aside this decision.
- However, after the replying
affidavits had been filed and while the main application was still
pending, SARS delivered letters and notices of assessment to the
applicants.
- The applicants delivered a further
supplementary affidavit dealing with the letters and notices of
assessment. In the further supplementary affidavit, the applicants
contended that the decision by SARS to issue the letters and
notices of assessment fall to be reviewed and set aside in terms of
the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000
("PAJA"), alternatively the principle of
legality.
- Together with the further
supplementary affidavit, the applicants delivered a Rule 28
Notice.
- SARS objected to the Rule 28 Notice
which necessitated the present application for leave to be
amended.
- The court considered:
- whether it was appropriate to grant
leave to the applicant to amend its notice of motion.
- rule 28 of the Uniform Rules of
Court, considered.
- section 80J of the ITA,
considered.
- section 9 of the TAA,
considered.
- section 105 of the TAA,
considered.
- whether it was appropriate to grant
leave to the applicant to amend its notice of motion.
- Find a copy of this judgment here.
- SARS officials issued a section 80J
of the Income Tax Act, 1962 ("ITA")
notice to each of the applicants.
- High Court of South Africa
(Gauteng Division, Pretoria) | BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v
CSARS (22772/2020)
- In Part A, the applicant sought
interim relief in the form of an interdict, in essence prohibiting
the respondent on executing on a debt management certified
statement obtained in terms of section 114(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs
and Excise Act, 1964 ("Customs
Act").
- In Part B, the applicant sought to
have the decision of the Commissioner to file the debt management
certified statement to be reviewed and set aside in terms of
PAJA.
- The nub of the dispute between the
applicant and the respondent in relation to the civil judgment was
a consequential failure by the applicant to produce valid
acquittals relating to some of the consignments stated in the
letters of demand and the subject of the civil judgment.
- The respondent demanded payment or
returns of the amounts credited to the applicant which were not
supported by proof that the export of fuel in fact occurred.
- The applicant wanted to keep the
amount of the export refund it received by credit, pending either
the completion of its internal investigation to uncover the
documents or mounting a court challenge to the letters of demand
and the civil judgment.
- The court considered, inter
alia:
- the requirements of an interim
interdict.
- whether the applicant will suffer any
prejudice should the urgent application not be granted.
- directives applicable to the court of
urgent applications in the Gauteng Division, Pretoria.
- rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of
Court.
- the requirements of an interim
interdict.
- find a copy of this judgment here.
- In Part A, the applicant sought
interim relief in the form of an interdict, in essence prohibiting
the respondent on executing on a debt management certified
statement obtained in terms of section 114(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs
and Excise Act, 1964 ("Customs
Act").
- High Court of South Africa
(Gauteng Division, Pretoria) | Purveyors South Africa Mine
Services (Pty) Ltd v CSARS (61689/2019)
- Relief was sought by the applicant in
the High Court, that the respondent's decision in terms of
which it held that the applicant's voluntary disclosure
application submitted in terms of the provisions of Part B to
Chapter 16 of the TAA be reviewed and set aside.
- The applicant imported an aircraft
into South Africa in 2015 which it then used to transport goods and
personnel to other countries in Africa. The applicant failed to pay
import value-added tax ("VAT") to SARS
in respect of the importation of the aircraft.
- During the latter part of 2016, the
applicant manifested reservations about its failure to have paid
the import VAT and accordingly engaged with SARS to obtain a view
on its liability for such tax. Following the engagements, the
applicant was informally advised (ie, no notice of audit or
criminal investigation) that the applicant was liable for the
import VAT and more importantly, that penalties were applicable as
a result of the failure to have paid the import VAT.
- The applicant subsequently applied to
SARS for voluntary disclosure relief in terms of section 226 of the
TAA. SARS declined to grant relief on the basis that the applicant
had not met the requirements of section 227 of the TAA.
- The court considered, inter
alia:
- the requirements of section 226 of
the TAA.
- the requirements of section 227 of
the TAA.
- the meaning of the word
"voluntary".
- whether a disclosure is made
voluntary if SARS already has knowledge thereof.
- the requirements of section 226 of
the TAA.
- find a copy of this judgment here.
- Relief was sought by the applicant in
the High Court, that the respondent's decision in terms of
which it held that the applicant's voluntary disclosure
application submitted in terms of the provisions of Part B to
Chapter 16 of the TAA be reviewed and set aside.
To read the full article, please click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.