DIESEL REFUNDS AFTER TRAKMAN AND GLENCORE: COMPLIANCE VS COMMERCIAL REALITY

Recent case law on diesel refunds under the Customs and Excise Act, 1964 (the C&E Act), reveals an emerging tension in how courts may approach refunds and tax incentives.

HIGH COURT GRANTS RELIEF IN MAJOR SARS VESSEL SEIZURE DISPUTE

The recent Western Cape High Court judgment in Ocean Ark Shipping Ltd and Another v C:SARS (April 2026) is likely to attract considerable attention within the maritime, logistics and energy sectors. The case concerns SARS’ detention and seizure of the tanker MT Essien in connection with alleged contraventions under the Customs & Excise Act, 1964 (‘the Act’) and Value-Added Tax Act, 1991, arising from coastwise trade operations in South African waters.

GLENCORE V SARS: A PRACTICAL WIN FOR SUBSTANCE OVER FORM IN DIESEL REFUNDS

In a rare loss for SARS, the Supreme Court of Appeal (‘SCA’) in Glencore Operations SA (Pty) Ltd v CSARS (April 2026) provided valuable guidance for joint ventures in the mining sector participating in the diesel refund scheme.

PLEASE CHECK THE WORDING OF SARS GUARANTEES

In a recent judgment in the matter Lombard Insurance Company Limited v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Case No. 7177/2022, Gauteng Division, Pretoria), the importance of the wording of a guarantee issued to the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) came to the fore.

WHEN ‘PAY NOW, ARGUE LATER’ GOES TOO FAR

If SARS issues an assessment and says you owe tax, they expect you to pay it — even if you believe the assessment is wrong and are challenging it in the Tax Court. For businesspeople, that can mean crippling cash flow pressure long before a dispute is resolved. In a recent Gauteng High Court judgment, Ferreria v Commissioner for SARS (Case no 2024-067035; Pretoria High Court; on 2 February 2026), is a reminder that SARS’ powers are not unlimited.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CLARIFIES FUEL LEVY REFUND REQUIREMENTS

On 16 January 2026, the Constitutional Court delivered an important judgment for the fuel industry in Tholo Energy Services CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service Case CCT 252/24. The decision addresses the removal of fuel levy goods (‘fuel”) to Lesotho, being a BLNE member state. Although the decision confirms that fuel levy and Road Accident Fund (RAF) levy refunds are subject to strict statutory compliance, it also applies to the refund of excise duty and levies in respect of exports to non-BLNE countries. The decision therefore provides clarity on several long-debated issues affecting cross-border fuel supplies.

Can a determination be reviewed?

The Impact of the Levi Strauss SA Judgment

Recently the Supreme Court of Appeal handed down judgment in a long running dispute between Levi Strauss SA (Pty) Ltd (“Levi SA”) and the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”).

SARS can be stopped

Levi Strauss (Pty) Ltd v SARS

Freek van Rooyen, Partner at Shepstone & Wylie’s Johannesburg office, and customs and excise specialist, represented Levi Strauss in a dispute with SARS.