Supreme Court: State Cannot Acquire Temple Property Through Gift Deed  ||  Supreme Court: HC Registry Should Exclude Court Vacations When Listing Cases After Fixed Days  ||  Supreme Court Flags Stark Non-Compliance With Directions on CAPF Cadre Review  ||  Supreme Court: Internet Access and Use is a Fundamental Right, Including for Children  ||  Supreme Court: Letters Patent Bench Cannot Interfere Merely Over Errors of Fact or Law  ||  Supreme Court: Voters May File Complaints Against Candidates over False Affidavits under RP Act  ||  Madras HC: Using Children in Campaign is Inappropriate but Does Not Invalidate Election  ||  Allahabad HC: Section 69 BNS Cannot Be Invoked by Transgender Woman in False Marriage Promise Case  ||  Delhi High Court Permits Britannia’s ‘No Added Sugar, Maida or Palm Oil’ Claim on Biscuit Packs  ||  Calcutta High Court Bars Deportation of Alleged Bangladeshi Woman until CAA Application is Decided    

United Manganese of Kalahari (Pty) Ltd vs. Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service - (24 Mar 2023)

Only forum in which a taxpayer may dispute or object to a decision of an assessment, including additional assessments, is the tax court, unless the high court directs otherwise

Direct Taxation

The Respondent, the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (SARS), issued a letter to the appellant, United Manganese of Kalahari (Pty) Ltd (UMK) regarding an audit conducted in respect of the 2011, 2012 and 2013 income tax years of assessment. SARS issued a letter of audit findings in terms of Section 42(2)(b) of the Tax Administration Act, 1962 (TAA) setting out the outcome of the audit and the grounds of SARS’ proposed additional assessments. The audit was subsequently finalised and the assessments issued.

The additional assessments, in the amount of R351 034 504.47, provided that payment by UMK was due to SARS. This excludes interest levied on the dividend tax assessment. UMK sought to dispute the assessments and gave the requisite notice in terms of Section 11(4) of the TAA to institute proceedings against SARS in the high court (review) instead of exercising their right of appeal in the tax court.

However, the high court as well as present Court, confirmed that the high court’s jurisdiction is dependent upon a directive in terms of s 105, to prevent tax-related issues being raised in a court other than the tax court.

Section 105 of the TAA provides that, the only forum in which a taxpayer may dispute or object to a decision of an assessment, including additional assessments, is the tax court, unless the high court directs otherwise. The purpose of Section 105 is to ensure that, in the ordinary course, tax disputes are taken to the tax court. UMK did not make out a case which warranted deviation from the established procedure. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : AUDIT   ASSESSMENT   OBJECTIONS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved