Rédaction Africa Links 24 with Marianne Thamm
Published on 2024-03-06 12:09:06
In March 2022, there was a raid conducted on the premises of Bullion Star, a precious metals dealer, after the South African Revenue Service (SARS) obtained a warrant under section 59 of the Tax Administration Act (TAA) 28 of 2011. The raid was based on the belief that Bullion Star had committed various tax offenses and had facilities capable of transforming precious metals and minerals into higher-value products for sale both locally and internationally.
The Supreme Court Of Appeal, with Deputy President Xola Petse and judges Thobeka Mbatha, Keoagile Matojane, Fayeeza Kathree-Setiloane, and Raylene Keightley, ruled in favor of SARS in the matter involving an appeal by Kapeel Bechan and Bechan Consulting (PTY) LTD, also known as Bullion Star, against SARS Customs, Tactical and Illicit Economy Units, the Minister of Police, and the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI). Bechan had sought the return of items seized during the raid, including laptops, cellphones, and financial documents, on the grounds that the seizure was unlawful.
The court heard that SARS officials arrived at the premises on the day of the raid to search for material relevant to Bullion Star’s tax liability, following suspicions raised by the company’s VAT return claim and export activities. During the raid, officials observed individuals removing items from the building and placing them in vehicles. When given access to the premises, they found items in a vehicle belonging to Bechan, who initially denied knowledge of their presence.
SARS officials then conducted a search and requested Bechan’s participation, leading to a subsequent legal battle over the items seized. Bechan attempted to reclaim some of the devices seized, but his request was denied by the court due to lack of proof of ownership. The high court held that SARS was within its rights to search for and seize items relevant to Bullion Star, as authorized by the warrant.
The dispute also centered around the location of the seized items and whether they fell within the scope of the company’s premises. The court noted that the TAA limits SARS officials in searching property belonging to third parties unless there is suspicion that the property contains relevant material. Judge Kathree-Setiloane emphasized the importance of enabling SARS officials to search for material on third-party property when necessary to prevent obstruction of justice.
Ultimately, the court ruled against Bechan, affirming SARS’s right to seize the items found in the vehicle. Despite subsequent developments in the case, including the setting aside of the search warrant by the high court, the appeal was decided based on the circumstances at the time of the original judgment.
In conclusion, the legal battle between Bullion Star and SARS highlights the complexities of tax enforcement and the rights of authorities to conduct searches and seizures in pursuit of tax compliance. The case serves as a reminder of the need for clear legal frameworks to govern such operations while balancing the rights of taxpayers and the obligations of tax authorities.
Read the original article on Daily Maverick
