Tax return filed without your consent? Court says SARS must reconsider

SARS can't brush off a request to cut a tax bill just because the business had an official "public officer" on record, if someone else filed the returns without permission. That's the effect of a Johannesburg High Court ruling handed down on 8 October 2026, which SARS has now published on its judgments page.

Judge Wright set aside two SARS decisions refusing to reduce the tax assessments of TEG Asset & Risk Management CC, a close corporation, and sent the matter back to SARS to decide again (judgment). SARS must also pay TEG's legal costs.

What happened in this case?

TEG's sole member hired an accountant in 2010 to handle its books, including tax returns. According to his affidavit, the accountant later subcontracted a tax consultant, and it was the consultant, not the accountant, who held TEG's eFiling codes and filed its returns (judgment).

SARS audited TEG's 2017 income tax return and VAT returns for periods between 2015 and 2017. TEG says SARS treated deposits into its bank accounts as income and payments as expenses because supporting documents were never sent, which pushed the assessments up (judgment).

Source: High Court judgment, case 2023-110354.

The owner also told the court he asked his accountant for the eFiling profile codes and was told to contact SARS, but SARS would only release them if the accountant agreed (judgment).

Why did SARS say no?

SARS gave one reason: the accountant was TEG's registered public officer, so in its view the returns were filed with authority and the law allowing a reduction didn't apply (judgment).

What does the law actually say?

Section 93(1)(e)(iii) of the Tax Administration Act lets SARS reduce an assessment if a senior SARS official is satisfied it was based on "a return fraudulently submitted by a person not authorised by the taxpayer" (judgment).

The court said this has two requirements. The return itself must be fraudulent, and it must have been filed by someone the taxpayer never authorised to file returns at all. A return is not fraudulent simply because someone other than the public officer submitted it (judgment, Accounting Weekly).

TEG's claim that the consultant filed without its authority was not denied in SARS's answering affidavit. On that evidence, the judge found SARS's reason for refusing was wrong (judgment).

Does this mean TEG's tax bill is cancelled?

No. The court did not find that the returns were fraudulent or that TEG is owed a reduced assessment. It only ruled that SARS must consider the request again properly (Polity).

The judge also said SARS's decision-makers "can hardly be blamed", because key facts only became clear once TEG filed its court papers (judgment). And the ruling repeats a point that cuts both ways: the duty to file correct, on-time returns stays with the taxpayer (judgment).

The judgment is marked not reportable, meaning the judge did not mark it for the law reports (judgment).

How can you keep an eye on what's filed in your name?

SARS itself advises taxpayers to make sure the email address and contact details on their eFiling profile are correct, and to check their eFiling profile and registered email regularly for SARS correspondence (SARS). SARS also says it will never ask for passwords, PINs or banking details by email (SARS).

If you believe a return was filed fraudulently by someone you never authorised, section 93 is the route the court looked at, and the request goes to SARS for a senior official to decide (judgment).