SARS High Court Update Flags Bidvest Bank Notice Dispute

In Short

SARS has published a High Court legal update on a dispute involving Bidvest Bank. The update outlines legal questions about a third-party notice, whether a final demand was required, and who is entitled to funds held by the bank.

What Happened

On 23 September 2026, SARS posted a legal update under its “Dispute Resolution and Judgments” High Court section.

The matter relates to SARS issuing a “third-party notice” to Bidvest Bank. A third-party notice is an instruction from the tax authority to a third party, like a bank, to pay over money it holds for a taxpayer. It is similar to a garnishee order in debt collection, where money is redirected before it reaches the account holder.

SARS listed three issues in the case.

First, whether SARS was correct to issue the third-party notice to Bidvest Bank.

Second, whether SARS was correct not to issue a final demand before issuing the notice. A final demand is the formal “last call” for payment, before enforcement steps start.

Third, whether the applicant was entitled to the funds held by Bidvest Bank.

The SARS update does not state a final outcome or judgment result. It mainly highlights what the court matter is about.

Why It Matters

For banks and fintechs that integrate with banking rails, third-party notices are operationally important. They can trigger account freezes, fund transfers, and customer complaints, all under legal timelines.

For founders and operators in South Africa, this is also a reminder that tax enforcement can extend beyond the taxpayer directly. When SARS targets funds held at a bank, the bank becomes part of the enforcement workflow.

If the court later clarifies when a final demand is required, it could affect compliance processes, customer notifications, and how quickly institutions must act on SARS instructions. That is especially relevant for digital banks, payment providers, and platforms that hold customer balances in pooled or trust accounts.