Print Page   |   Report Abuse
News & Press: Case Law

ABC (Pty) Ltd vs Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service Case No: VAT 1237

21 April 2016   (0 Comments)
Posted by: Author: SAIT Technical
Share |

Author: SAIT Technical

The  issue was whether the decision by SARS to remit the interest imposed by him, was to be decided in terms of the provisions of subsection 39(7) of the VAT Act, prior to the amendment on the 1st April 2010, or the amended subsection 39(7) which was to apply on or after the 1st April 2010.

The court held that interest was imposed in terms of section 39(1)(a)(ii) on the first day of the month following the month during which VAT was payable. The basis upon which that interest could be remitted was amended, and also came into operation on the 1st April 2010 and applied to interest imposed on or after that date. There can be no doubt then that any possible remission of the interest imposed on the 1st April 2010, could only be considered by SARS on the basis of the amended provisions applying on that date.

Please click here to view full judgement.


Section 240A of the Tax Administration Act, 2011 (as amended) requires that all tax practitioners register with a recognized controlling body before 1 July 2013. It is a criminal offense to not register with both a recognized controlling body and SARS.


The Act requires that a minimum academic and practical requirments be set to register with a controlling body. Click here for the minimum requirements of SAIT.

Membership Management Software Powered by®  ::  Legal