Home | News | NGWANE MILLS LOSES E40M CASE AGAINST SRA

NGWANE MILLS LOSES E40M CASE AGAINST SRA

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

MBABANE – A bid by Ngwane Mills (Propriety) Limited to have the decision of SRA commissioner that it was liable to pay over E40 million for undeclared wheat reviewed and set aside, has hit a snag.


This comes after Judge Cyril Maphanga dismissed an application where the company was seeking an order to review and set aside the decision of the SRA commissioner general in terms of which he determined that the company was liable to pay Valued Added Tax (VAT) together with additional penalties levied thereon,  amounting to E40 109 557.26.


In his judgment, Judge Maphanga stated that there was no question that in terms of Section 4 of the VAT Act the applicant (Ngwane Mills) also had an obligation or at the very least also became liable to pay VAT on the non-declared wheat imports.


The court held that the applicant had an active interest in the goods throughout the process of procurement and as such, had a beneficial interest in the merchandise to qualify it as an importer and as such, also became liable for the payment of VAT.
Judge Maphanga said the applicant also failed to show that the SRA commission general exceeded his powers in making the determination.


“Ultimately, I am persuaded that the wheat imports in question were subject to the regulatory provisions requiring due entry to be made upon importation, on account of the goods being a restricted product for which no permit exempting such imports from mandatory statutory requirements for declaration,” said Judge Maphanga.


The judge went on to state that, he was in agreement with SRA’s lawyer that the commissioner general was entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 37, 78 and 81 of the Customs Act.


“Further, I am also inclined to conclude that the circumstances of this matter, the measure of forfeiture or in lieu thereof, the imposition of the penalty as determined by the commissioner general was justified,” reads part of the judgment.

Comments (0 posted):

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image: