NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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