Posted in sections, this is my Doctoral Thesis on taxpayers rights when audited by the tax authorities in South Africa – equally applicable to many English-based law systems in Africa and abroad (eg. India). This will be of particular use to any tax practitioners doing work in Africa and in other English-based legal systems around the world.

Analysis Of Challenging The Commissioner’s Discretionary Powers In Auditing Taxpayers under The Constitution Of The Republic of South Africa

2.5 ADEQUATE REASONS

2.5.1 Introduction
If a decision by SARS in terms of ss74A and 74B is ‘administrative action’ as defined in PAJA, and the decision and a taxpayers ‘rights have been materially and adversely affected’ as contemplated in s 5(1) of PAJA, SARS will have to give adequate reasons as contemplated in s 5(2), failing which it will be presumed that the administrative action of SARS was ‘taken without good reason’ (s 5(3) of PAJA), bringing the transgression within the ambit of a s 6(2)(c) and (i) of PAJA ground of review.

Hoexter states139 that although PAJA gives effect to the constitutional right to reasons for administrative action as defined, and therefore only applies to those rights and legitimate expectations ‘materially and adversely affected by administrative action’,140 reasons will increasingly be accepted as part of the content of fairness, even where rights are not involved, or as the subject matter of the discourse of public power in the broader sense, outside the narrowly defined scope of ‘administrative action’ in PAJA.

Next:  Chapter 2 – 2.5.2 The relevance of s 74 of the Income Tax Act

In accordance with Circular 230 Disclosure

****************

Footnotes

139 Hoexter C & Lyster R The New Constitutional & Administrative (2002) Juta at page 203.
140 As envisaged in s 5(1) of PAJA.