The Durban High Court witnessed intense legal arguments over the fraud trial of Thoshan Panday, accused of defrauding SARS of R7.3 million..
Image: Picture: Supplied
Tension filled the Durban High Court on Tuesday as legal teams battled to navigate the complexities surrounding the fraud trial of Durban businessman Thoshan Panday, who has been accused of tax evasion amounting to R7.3 million by the South African Revenue Service (SARS).
SARS' fraud and tax evasion claims against Panday are linked to corruption allegations stemming from the 2010 Fifa World Cup police accommodation tender that was awarded to his company, Gold Coast.
The issue of contention during Tuesday's proceedings centred on whether a key witness for the state, Shikar Panday, could testify remotely.
Shikar Panday is the co-owner of the company that was tasked by Gold Coast to assist with its tax compliance matters.
A medical certificate presented to the court indicated that Shikar Panday experiences anxiety. Therefore, the state requested that he be allowed to testify from a remote location.
State prosecutor Talita Louw sought a postponement of proceedings until Thursday to hear from a specialist physician regarding Shikar Panday’s medical condition, which was detailed in the application presented to the court.
Louw explained that the doctor, who works at two hospitals, was unavailable due to scheduling conflicts but could provide a one-hour window for a digital consultation later in the week.
She explained that the medical professional assessed Shikar Panday's condition as that of someone who experiences severe anxiety, which could hinder his ability to testify under the pressures of an open courtroom.
“The application is brought under Section 158 based on the physician's assessment that the witness experiences severe anxiety under pressure,” Louw said, indicating that alternative arrangements were necessary for the witness's testimony and to protect his wellbeing.
However, Acting Judge Vikela Ntlokwana raised concerns about the validity of the request, particularly as the medical documentation before the court granted Shikar Panday exemption from the proceedings until Monday.
“This court cannot proceed without the necessary support from medical professionals,” said Ntlokwana.
Defence lawyer Advocate Michael Hellens SC vehemently objected to the postponement request.
He argued that such a delay would disregard a prior court order mandating the presence of either the witness or a medical professional, thereby rendering the state's proposal ineffective.
“The provided medical note is expired and lacks an updated status,” Hellens said, emphasising the importance of the court's physical setting for justice to be served. He likened remote testimony to a "disregard for the court's authority".
Ntlokwana denied the postponement request.
Accordingly, Shikar Panday took the witness stand.
Regarding the tax return submission processes that were employed, Shikar Panday indicated that he had encountered some challenges with the Pastel accounting software that was used.
While Shikar Panday said strict protocols were in place to ensure the software's accuracy, he acknowledged that systemic errors, such as data corruption and glitches, could not be entirely ruled out when generating Gold Coast's tax submissions.
“External consultants can configure the software to streamline processes,” he explained.
Central to his testimony were critical discrepancies in Gold Coast's tax calculations for the 2011 financial year, which suggested that there may have been significant flaws in the approach taken by the tax authority in processing them.
Hellens highlighted that SARS had allegedly miscalculated taxable income by relying on bank receipt dates instead of actual invoice dates, undermining the case against Thoshan Panday.
“This mismatched framework fundamentally undermines the integrity of the charge sheet,” he claimed, pointing to what he described as blatant errors committed by both the state and SARS.
Hellens' assertions related to submissions made by state witness Riaan Engelbrecht, a SARS investigator, during his testimony on Monday. Engelbrecht defended SARS' methodologies in tax assessments.
Engelbrecht claimed that Panday had committed tax fraud through deceptive financial submissions tied to his company.
Hellens probed Engelbrecht’s testimony and questioned why the investigator was unable to substantiate certain claims with verifiable documentation.
The matter is proceeding.
DAILY NEWS