Delhi HC: Non-Proof of Hearing Notice Dispatch Doesn’t by Itself Show no Personal Hearing Was Given  ||  Delhi High Court: No Construction or Residence Allowed on Yamuna Floodplains, Even For Graveyards  ||  J&K High Court: Right to Speedy Trial Includes Appeals; Closes 46-Year-Old Criminal Case Due to Delay  ||  J&K High Court: Courts Must Not Halt Corruption Probes, Refuses to Quash FIR  ||  J&K&L HC: Matrimonial Remedies May Overlap, But Cruelty Claims Cannot be Selectively Invoked  ||  Delhi High Court: Customs Officials Acting Officially Cannot be Cross-Examined as of Right  ||  J&K&L HC: Second Arbitral Reference is Maintainable if Award is Set Aside Without Deciding Merits  ||  J&K&L HC: Gold Voluntarily Given to Customer is 'Entrustment'; Theft Excluded from Insurance Cover  ||  Delhi HC: Working Mothers Cannot be Forced to Bear Full Childcare Burden While Fathers Evade Duty  ||  J&K&L HC: Arbitral Tribunal Not a “Court”; Giving False Evidence Before it Doesn’t Attract S.195 CrPC    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved