South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2015 >> [2015] ZAGPPHC 609

| Noteup | LawCite

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Marshall NO and Others (39219/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 609 (21 August 2015)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format


IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

Case number: 39219/2014

Date:

In the matter between:

THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH

AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE                                                                                     APPLICANT

And

ALAN GEORGE MARSHALL N.O.                                                                     1ST RESPONDENT

RENE PIETER DE WET N.O.                                                                              2ND RESPONDENT

KNOWLEDGE LWAZI MBOYI N.O.                                                                  3RD RESPONDENT

JOHN ANDREW DE MARTIN N.O.                                                                    4TH RESPONDENT

RAY SIPHOSOMHLE SITHEMBELE                                                                5TH RESPONDENT

MSENGANA N.O.                                                                                                   6TH RESPONDENT

KOVIN SHUNMUGAM NAIDOO                                                                       7TH RESPONDENT

SAMSON MAKHUDU GULUBE                                                                         8TH RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

(APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL)

PRETORIUS J,

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 May 2015.

[2] I have read the notice for the application for leave to appeal and have listened to the arguments by counsel.

[3] Although I am still convinced that my finding on the interpretation of section 8(5) of the Value Added Tax No. 89 of 1991 read with section 11(2) n of the Value Added Tax Act is correct, there is a possibility that another court may come to a different conclusion.

[4] Therefore I make the following order:

1.            Leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal;

2.            Costs of this application to be costs in the appeal.

_____________________

Judge C Pretorius

 

Case number                                     : 39219/2014

 

Appeal for leave to appeal

heard on                                             : 6 August 2015

 

For the Applicant                               : Adv. A Sholto-Douglas/Adv Cassim

Instructed by                                       : STATE ATTORNEY



For the Respondent                          : Adv. PA Swanepoel

Instructed by                                       : EDWARD NATHAN SONNENBERGS

                                                              INC

 

Date of Judgment                             :