Judgment No. CCZ 7/2014 13 Const. Application No. 41/2014 consequent upon the invalidity of a provision of an Act of Parliament without any formal declaration of the invalidity of that provision.” Sections 36 of the VAT Act and 69(1) of the Income Tax Act make provision for a remedy, compliance with which is designed to give effect to the protection of the fundamental rights the applicant claims have been infringed. See Metcash Trading Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another 2001(1) SA 110(CC). The fact that the statutory provisions give the Commissioner the discretionary power to direct that the continuing obligation to pay the tax, be suspended pending an appeal to the Fiscal Appeal Court means that a mechanism was put in place to ameliorate financial hardships experienced by individual taxpayers as a result of the enforcement of the “pay now, argue later rule”. Suspension of the operation of the “pay now, argue later rule” can be decided and should be decided by the Commissioner. He cannot act mero motu. As the facts on which the Commissioner would exercise the discretionary power would be within the exclusive knowledge of the taxpayer he or she must place them before the Commissioner. In this case the Commissioner was not formally requested by the applicant to direct the suspension of the continuing obligation to pay the charged tax pending determination of the appeal by the Fiscal Appeal Court. No decision was made by the Commissioner on the matter. The respondent cannot be ordered to give reasons for a decision it did not make. The applicant merely expressed an opinion that it would be prudent for the respondent not to demand payment of the tax pending determination of the appeal. The respondent cannot be ordered to give reasons for reminding the applicant of its statutory obligation.