Purveyors South Africa Mine Services (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services

Purveyors South Africa Mine Services (Pty) Ltd entered into a dry lease agreement in January 2015 for an aircraft used to provide air charter services between South Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Import VAT on the aircraft was not paid. From January to May 2017, SARS officials engaged with Purveyors, informed it that import VAT, penalties and interest were payable, and requested documentation to regularise the default. Purveyors acknowledged liability and obtained advice from PwC confirming the obligation. Nearly a year later, in April 2018, Purveyors applied for voluntary disclosure relief under sections 226 and 227 of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011. SARS rejected the application on the basis that the disclosure was not voluntary and did not disclose information unknown to SARS. The Tax Court upheld SARS’s decision, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, and the decision of SARS rejecting the voluntary disclosure application was upheld.

The case clarifies the interpretation of ‘voluntary disclosure’ under the Tax Administration Act and confirms that disclosures prompted by SARS compliance actions or involving defaults already known to SARS do not qualify for relief. It strengthens SARS’s ability to refuse voluntary disclosure relief where taxpayers seek to regularise non-compliance only after being confronted, thereby reinforcing the integrity and purpose of the Voluntary Disclosure Programme.