As lawyers specialising in Customs & Excise Law, we find that the general perception in the industry is that the courts favour the South African Revenue Service (Sars).
It’s not our place to express views on whether the courts favour Sars or not.
What we can say is that when weighing up the prospect of litigating against Sars, a proper assessment of the merits must first be undertaken.
Secondly, all internal dispute resolution processes provided for in the Customs & Excise Act must be exhausted.
As specialists in Customs & Excise Law, including representing taxpayers against Sars, the decision about whether to litigate is frequent.
We monitor High Court, Supreme Court, and Constitutional Court rulings.
A recent article titled "A rare victory for taxpayers: Richards Bay Minerals wins royalties battle with Sars" sparked discussion on whether courts favour Sars.
While we refrain from expressing an opinion, litigating against Sars isn't hopeless.
Assessing merits is crucial; exhausting internal dispute resolution under the Customs Act is often required. Success rates vary. Strict compliance is crucial, notably in diesel rebate disputes. Preparation and merit assessment are key before litigating against Sars.
As customs and excise law specialists, we frequently advise on litigating against Sars. Recent court rulings, like "Richards Bay Minerals' victory over Sars", raise questions about court favouritism. While we refrain from judgement, litigating isn't futile.
Assessing case merits and exhausting internal dispute resolutions under the Customs Act are crucial steps. Success in disputes varies, especially in diesel rebate cases requiring strict compliance. Before litigating, ensure compliance with rebate requirements. Despite challenges, well-prepared cases can succeed.
- Freek van Rooyen is a partner at Shepstone & Wylie, specialising in "Customs, Excise, VAT & Trade Remedies."