SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Reject a Plaint While Exercising Jurisdiction under Article 227  ||  SC: Merely Leasing an Apartment Does Not Bar a Flat Buyer’s Consumer Complaint Against the Builder  ||  Delhi HC: Unproven Adultery Allegations Cannot be Used to Deny Interim Maintenance under the DV Act  ||  Bombay HC: Storing Items in a Fridge isn’t Manufacturing and Doesn’t Make Premises a Factory  ||  Kerala HC: Disability Pension is Not Payable if the Condition is Unrelated to Military Service  ||  Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved