Tax In Brief - Issue 172

Below, please find issue 172 of ENS’ tax in brief, a snapshot of the latest tax developments in South Africa.

Case law

• High Court | Ocean Ark Shipping Ltd and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Leave to Appeal) (2025/209746) [2026] ZAWCHC 330 (8 June 2026)
  • The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (“Commissioner” or “SARS”) applied for leave to appeal against a judgment and order of the High Court and the Applicants brought a conditional application in terms of section 18(1), read with section 18(3), of the Superior Courts Act, 2013 (“Superior Courts Act”) for an order that the judgment and order not be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal.
  • In making its determination, the High Court was required to determine whether the interim order was appealable, and whether the Applicants had shown that the Commissioner would not suffer irreparable harm if an execution order were granted.
  • The High Court held that the order was appealable, granted the Commissioner leave to appeal and refused the section 18(3) application as the Applicants had failed to prove that the Commissioner would not suffer irreparable harm.
  • Find a copy of the judgment here.
• High Court | Ocean Ark Shipping Ltd and Another v Commissioner for the South
  • The Applicants applied for leave to appeal the refusal of an enforcement order in terms of section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act, pending SARS’ appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  • In making its determination, the High Court was required to determine whether the refusal of a section 18(3) order is an appealable “judgment or order” under section 16(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
  • The High Court held that a refusal of section 18 relief is not ordinarily appealable and the application for leave to appeal was refused with costs.
  • Find a copy of the judgment here
• High Court | Reload Aquarius Shipping International (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (149944/26) [2026] ZAGPPHC (21 July 2026) o The Applicant sought an order that the matter be dealt with as an urgent application and condoning non-compliance with section 96 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964 (“Customs and Excise Act”).
  • The High Court held that the Applicant:
• had an instant remedy of complying with its obligation as a licensee of a warehouse in terms of the Customs and Excise Act, namely, to increase its security bond; and
• created its own urgency by failing to provide the Commissioner the information and documents requested and its failure to submit the application to have the security value increased.
  • The application was struck from the roll with costs for lack of urgency. o Find a copy of the judgment here.

SARS publications

• Interpretation Note 31 (Issue 5) | Documentary Proof Required for the Zero-Rating of Goods or Services
  • SARS has published Issue 5 of Interpretation Note 31. This Interpretation Note sets out the documentary proof that is acceptable to the Commissioner as contemplated in section 11(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, 89 of 1991, in instances where goods or services are supplied at the zero rate.
  • Find a copy of the latest issue of Interpretation Note 31 here.
• Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) programme
  • SARS has published a dedicated webpage entitled “Implementation of Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs)” as part of the ongoing implementation of South Africa’s APA programme.
  • The webpage provides an overview of the programme, its objectives, expected benefits, and the planned pilot approach.
  • The APA programme aims to provide upfront tax certainty for qualifying cross- border related-party transactions.
  • Access the webpage here.

To view 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.