Five points to consider when the SA Revenue Service owes you a refund

Earlier in 2020, SARS relished the fact that it had paid R2.4-billion in refunds to taxpayers, saying it was “a major cash injection into the economy at a very critical period”. But the revenue service has generally been slow to refund excess payments. The Tax Ombud, for instance, reported that in the 2018/19 financial year, 24.43% of all complaints received by its office related to delayed refunds - the second-highest number of complaints.

The serious delays often experienced by taxpayers have been the subject of a systemic investigation by the ombud, but it seems this frustrating practice will persist as long as pressure on the fiscus prevails. Fortunately, taxpayers are not without legal recourse. 

In this ENSight, we look at five important considerations to take into account when SARS owes a refund.  

SARS ‘must’ pay a refund when a taxpayer is entitled to it

Section 190(1) of the Tax Administration Act, 2011 (TAA) determines that SARS “must” pay a refund, together with interest on that amount, to any taxpayer who is entitled to it. This provision extends to refunds of inter alia income tax, value-added tax (VAT), mineral royalties or pay-as-you-earn.

Enforcing this right, as a first step, would typically require the taxpayer to request a refund from SARS in respect of the amounts that are due.            

That being said, the right afforded to taxpayers is subject to further provisions of Section 190.

SARS has the right to conduct an audit before paying a refund

Section 190(2) contains a potential hurdle for taxpayers waiting for a refund. It says SARS is not required to pay a refund until a “verification, inspection or audit” in respect of that refund has been finalised in terms of Chapter 5 of the TAA. In other words, the subsection preserves SARS’s right to launch and finalise an audit of the refund (as opposed to, for example, a general VAT or mineral royalty audit) before paying a cent to the taxpayer. So, arguably, SARS cannot use the defence that it is busy with a general tax audit and therefore refuse to make the refund. However, each case must be considered on the relevant facts at hand.

The recent matter of Rappa Resources (Pty) Ltd v C:SARS illustrates the potential headaches of this section. In this matter, Rappa alleged it was owed a substantial amount of refunds. On the other hand, SARS argued that the amounts were still under audit and that no refunds could be paid. But, by the time of the judgment, the audit in respect of the March 2020 VAT return had not yet been completed. The high court cautioned that “SARS cannot be allowed an indefinite time to complete an audit” and, accordingly, the court directed SARS to conclude the audits by no later than 11 December 2020.

The takeaway is that a taxpayer who is subjected to a protracted audit may approach the court, in principle, for an order (a so-called mandamus) directing SARS to conclude its audit by a certain date. The court will, of course, consider various factors before granting such an order.

SARS ‘must’ pay a refund if the taxpayer tenders security

Section 190(3) provides that SARS “must” pay a refund - even before the finalisation of an audit - if the taxpayer has tendered security “in a form acceptable to a senior SARS official”. In the Rappa case the court confirmed that a taxpayer is not required to tender security for the whole amount of the refund. If the taxpayer, for instance, provides security for 50% of the refund, then SARS must concomitantly pay 50% of that refund.

A refund can prescribe

It’s important to keep in mind that Section 190(4) contains prescription provisions. It provides that a refund that stems from an erroneous overpayment of taxes will be forfeited to the state, unless a refund is made:

• In the case of an assessment by SARS (such as income tax), within three years of certain dates; and


• In the case of a self-assessment (such as VAT and mineral royalties), within five years from certain dates.