Colonial Sugar Refining Company v Irving
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1905 |
| Date | 1905 |
| Year | 1905 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Law of Australia - Power of the Commonwealth Parliament - Power to impose an Excise Duty to take effect from the Date of the Minister's Proposal - Commonwealth Acts, Nos. 11 and 14 of 1902 -
On July 26, 1902, Excise Tariff, 1902 (No. 11), was passed by the Commonwealth Parliament, imposing certain uniform duties of excise, including a duty on manufactured sugar, the produce of Australia, as from October 8, 1901, the day on which the Minister had moved a resolution to that effect in Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Representatives.
On October 16, 1902, the Customs Tariff, 1902 (No. 14), was passed, which imposed uniform duties of customs as from the same date.
In a suit by the appellants to recover back excise duties on manufactured sugar collected from them between October 8, 1901, and July 26, 1902, on the grounds (1.) that it was ultra vires of the Commonwealth Parliament to impose them until the actual imposition of uniform customs duties; (2.) that the duties were imposed in a manner which discriminated between States:—
Held, that Excise Tariff, 1902, was intra vires of the Commonwealth Parliament under the true construction of the material sections of the Constitution Act (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12). Neither s. 90 of that Act nor any other section expressly or impliedly prohibited the imposition of uniform excise duties previously to that of uniform customs duties. After that event the power to impose excise duties was exclusively vested in the Commonwealth, and the power of the States in that respect ceased. Under s. 51 Parliament has power, in accordance with the usual practice, to impose the duties as from the date of the resolution (s. 4 of Excise Tariff, 1902):—
Held, also, that s. 5 of Excise Tariff, 1902, which allowed an exemption in the case of goods on which customs or excise duties had been paid under State legislation before October 8, 1901, is not a discrimination between States within the meaning of s. 51 of the Constitution Act, but is applicable to all the States alike, for a purpose which was temporary and necessary.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Full Court (September 4, 1903) on a special case stated by consent of parties in an action by the appellants.
The appellants are manufacturers and refiners of sugar, carrying on business at Brisbane. Between October 8, 1901, and July 26, 1902, they were called upon by the respondent, the Commonwealth Collector of Customs for Queensland, to pay sums amounting to 20,100l., in respect of the 3s. per cwt. excise duty on 6700 tons of sugar refined by them, of which 824 tons 3 cwts. had been refined before October 8, 1901, and the rest subsequently, having been at that date raw sugar or (as to 364 tons) in process of being refined. The whole of the 6700 tons was produced and manufactured in Queensland, and was on October 8, 1901, in the appellants' stores at Brisbane connected with their refinery, and no duty of customs or excise had been paid thereon, or was under the law of Queensland payable thereon before October 8, 1901, or at any subsequent time.
The appellants, disputing the liability to duty, deposited the 20,100l., under the provisions of s. 154 of the
A special case was stated by consent in the action, and on September 4, 1903, the Full Court (Griffiths C.J. and Cooper and Real JJ.) determined that the appellants were not entitled to recover, and directed judgment to be entered for the respondent with costs.
Cohen, K.C., Wise (K.C. of the New South Wales Bar), and Tyrrell Paine, for the appellants, contended that the
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General v Vernazza
...the authority of Quitter v. Mapleson, 9 Q.B.D. 672. The cases of In re a Debtor, Ex parte Debtor [1936] Ch. 237 and The Colonial Sugar Refining Company, Limited v. Irving [1905] A.C. 369 are distinguishable. I do not find the former case in all respects easy to understand, but in both cas......
- Moran (W. R) Proprietary Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation for New South Wales. Attorney General for New South Wales and Others, Interveners
- James v Commonwealth
- Willmott v Kaufline
-
Preliminary Sections
...Amobi v. The State (S.C. 624/64) unreported 127 Clough v. LN.W.R. (1871) LR. 7 Ex.26 271 Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving (1905) A.C. 369, 372. 212 Commissioner of Lands v. Arah (1954) 14 W.A.C.A. 510. 152 Commissioner of Police v. Ayiku. 5 W A C A 89 42 Connecticut Fire Insurance......
-
Cases referred to in 1967
...Amobi v. The State (S.C. 624/64) unreported 127 Clough v. LN.W.R. (1871) LR. 7 Ex.26 271 Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving (1905) A.C. 369, 372. 212 Commissioner of Lands v. Arah (1954) 14 W.A.C.A. 510. 152 Commissioner of Police v. Ayiku. 5 W A C A 89 42 Connecticut Fire Insurance......
-
Discriminatory Taxation in Light of Fortescue: Its Implications for the Development of Northern Australia
...90, 101 (Taylor J, with whom Kitto and Windeyer JJ agreed) and the ea rlier Privy Council decision in Colonial Sugar Refinery Co v Irving [1906] AC 360, 367: the rule laid down by the Act is a general one, applicable to all the States alike, and the fact that it operates unequally in the se......