Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Sasol Chevron Holdings Limited

Sasol Chevron Holdings Limited purchased specialised catalyst goods from Sasol Catalyst in 2014 for export from South Africa to Nigeria under an ex-works and flash title arrangement. Sasol Catalyst initially zero-rated the supplies under the Value Added Tax Act and Export Regulations. The goods were not exported within the prescribed 90-day period and were only exported in April 2015. As a result, VAT became payable at the standard rate, which Sasol Chevron paid. SARS partially refused applications to extend the export period and ultimately decided on 6 December 2017 that Sasol Chevron was not entitled to a VAT refund. After further correspondence, SARS reaffirmed its stance on 26 March 2018. Sasol Chevron instituted a PAJA review application on 21 September 2018 without applying for an extension of the 180-day period prescribed by s 7(1) of PAJA.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the high court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the review application with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case reaffirms the strict operation of the 180-day time limit in s 7(1) of PAJA and confirms that, absent an extension under s 9, courts lack authority to consider the merits of a review brought out of time. It underscores the importance of procedural compliance in administrative law and tax review disputes.