Kerala HC: Can’t Condone Delay in Approaching Revision Authority Under Income Tax Act  ||  Karnataka HC: Scope of Judicial Review in Contractual Matters is Extremely Limited  ||  Bom. HC: Release of Film ‘Hamare Baarah’ Permitted After Agreement on Deletion of Certain Portions  ||  All. HC: Without Magistrate’s Permission, Investigation into Non-Cognizable Offence Illegal  ||  Himachal Pradesh High Court: Timeline Cannot be Imposed on Speakers to Decide Resignations of MLAs  ||  Ker. HC: In Quashing Proc. Courts to Look at All Circumstances to See if Case Initiated With Malice  ||  Kar. HC: Women Epicentres of Family Life, Deserve Preferential Treatment in Matters Relating to Bail  ||  Ker. HC: Order Holding Malabar Parota Similar to Bread and Exigible at 5% GST, Stayed  ||  Special Lok Adalat to be Organized by the Supreme Court from July 29  ||  Cal. HC: Bengal Govt. to Ensure Reservation in all Public Employment to Transgender Persons    

Mukura Africa (Pty) Ltd v. Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service - (16 Sep 2021)

If the standard method is the method applicable then that is the only method to be used for the concerned purpose

Sales Tax/VAT

Present appeal is filed against a judgment of the Tax Court of South Africa, Cape Town and the same is concerned with the apportionment of input value-added tax (VAT) under Section 17(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act 89 of 1991 (the VAT Act).

The Appellant, Mukuru Africa (Pty) Limited (Mukuru), a registered vendor under the VAT Act, commenced business on 1 February 2014. Mukuru provides money-transfer and bureau de change services, as well as mobile phone credit. It makes both taxable and exempt supplies for VAT purposes and also incurs expenditure in acquiring goods and services for the purpose of use, consumption or supply in the making of those supplies. The input VAT incurred by Mukuru accordingly falls to be apportioned in terms of Section 17(1) of the VAT Act.

The primary issue in the appeal is whether SARS (as it contends and the Tax Court held) was precluded by proviso (iii) from granting approval for use of the TC ratio by Mukuru in respect of the period 1 March 2014 to 29 February 2016.

It is noted that the Tax Court was correct in its conclusion that the Standard Turnover Based Method (STB) method set out in BGR16 was the only ratio applicable to the Appellant until its private binding ruling had been issued in 2017 and proviso (iii) to Section 17(1) expressly precluded SARS from issuing a ruling that had effect from a date earlier than 1 March 2016. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : STB   VAT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved