Tholo Energy Services CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (SARS)
Published 25 September 2024
The Tholo Energy Services CC v SARS case focuses on refund claims submitted to SARS which did not comply with the requirements of the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 (1964). Furthermore, the required permits and licences were also not in place.
Key Issues
1. Source of Fuel: The SARS Commissioner rejected the refund claims, because the fuel was not obtained from a licensed customs and excise manufacturing warehouse.
2. Export Permits: Tholo Energy Services exported the fuel without the necessary International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) permit.
3. Transportation Compliance: The fuel was not transported by a licensed remover of goods.
Facts of the case
Tholo Energy Services is a licensed distributor of fuel (LDF) and submitted claims for refunds totalling approximately R4.25 million. These claims were for 25 consignments of diesel exported to Lesotho. The fuel was obtained from depots of the Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (PetroSA).
Court Findings
The High Court upheld the Commissioner’s determination, refusing the refund claims.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) dismissed Tholo Energy Services' appeal, agreeing with the Commissioner’s grounds for rejection. The SCA found that the fuel was not manufactured in South Africa, was not removed from a licensed warehouse, and was not transported by a licensed remover of goods.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. This case underscores the importance of adhering to regulatory requirements for fuel distribution and exportation.
Read the full court case here:
Tholo Energy Services CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue ...
Want to know more?