The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Danwet 202 (Pty) Ltd

SARS conducted an audit of Danwet 202 (Pty) Ltd and issued an additional assessment for the 2012 tax year, significantly increasing the tax liability. Danwet objected, and SARS partially allowed the objection. Danwet attempted to lodge an appeal against the partial disallowance via SARS e-filing in December 2013, but SARS had no record of the appeal. More than six months later Danwet re-submitted the appeal with a request for condonation, alleging technical failures. SARS refused condonation on the basis that section 107(2) of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 did not permit an extension beyond the statutory maximum period. Danwet approached the Tax Court, which granted condonation. SARS appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The Tax Court’s order granting condonation was set aside and replaced with an order striking the matter from the roll.

The case clarifies the procedural requirements under the Tax Administration Act for challenging SARS decisions, particularly refusals to extend time periods. It confirms that strict compliance with the objection procedure in section 104(3) is jurisdictional and that failure to object deprives the Tax Court of authority to entertain a condonation application.