This article will count 0.25 units (15 minutes) of unverifiable CPD. Remember to log these units under your membership profile.
The Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg, set aside SARS's refusal to issue reduced assessments under section 93(1)(e)(iii) of the Tax Administration Act. Wright J delivered judgment on 8 October 2026 in TEG Asset & Risk Management CC v CSARS (case 2023-110354). The judgment is listed on SARS's High Court judgments page (last updated 20 October 2026). The judgment is marked not reportable.
The parties
TEG Asset & Risk Management CC (TEG) was the applicant. The Commissioner for SARS was the respondent.
The facts
SARS assessed TEG for income tax for 2017 and VAT for 2015 to 2017.
From 2010, TEG used an accountant, Mr Bowman, to file its returns. He sub-contracted a tax consultant, Ms Buitendag, who held the eFiling access codes.
SARS disallowed TEG's objections in 2019 and collected money from TEG's bank account in 2020.
TEG ended Mr Bowman's mandate in July 2022 but, it says on legal advice, kept him as its registered public officer pending the outcome.
TEG then asked SARS for reduced assessments, arguing the returns were submitted fraudulently by a person it had not authorised. SARS refused on 28 October 2022 and confirmed the refusal on 23 February 2023.
What the court decided
Mr Bowman was validly appointed as TEG's public officer at all relevant times.
Section 93(1)(e)(iii) has two requirements: the return must be fraudulent, and it must have been submitted by a person the taxpayer did not authorise.
A return is not fraudulent only because someone other than the public officer submitted it. The duty to file correct returns stays with the taxpayer.
SARS's only reason for refusing (that Mr Bowman was the public officer) was wrong, because unchallenged evidence showed Ms Buitendag filed the returns without TEG's authority.
The court did not blame SARS's decision-makers: the significance of Ms Buitendag's role became clear only in the founding affidavit.
The order
The decisions of Sars of 28 October 2022 and 23 February 2023 are reviewed and set aside.
The matter is sent back to Sars for decision.
The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs, including those of counsel. Scale C applies.
Points for practitioners
The court did not decide that the returns were fraudulent. SARS must now decide the request again.
A taxpayer relying on section 93(1)(e)(iii) must show both fraud and lack of authority.
Sub-contracting eFiling access to a person the client has not authorised creates risk for the client and the practitioner.
Clients should know who holds their eFiling credentials and who their registered public officer is.
Evidence put to SARS at the request stage matters: here, key facts emerged only in court papers.
Sources: SARS High Court judgments 2028-2026, Judgment: TEG Asset and Risk Management CC v CSARS
