Commissioner for ACT Revenue v Dataflex Pty Ltd and ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal

The Commissioner for ACT Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory against a decision of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) concerning Dataflex Pty Ltd's liability for payroll tax penalties. The dispute centred on whether Dataflex was entitled to a reduction in penalty tax under section 33 of the *Taxation Administration Act 1999* (ACT) due to a voluntary disclosure, and whether the Commissioner's actions constituted an "investigation" for the purposes of section 32 of that Act.

The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were: first, the proper interpretation of the term "investigation" as used in section 32 of the *Taxation Administration Act 1999* (ACT), and second, whether Dataflex's voluntary disclosure qualified for a reduction in penalty tax under section 33 of the Act, given that no investigation had commenced prior to the disclosure.

The Court held that the term "investigation" in section 32 should be given its natural and ordinary meaning, and that the Commissioner's actions did not amount to an investigation in this sense. The Court found that the purpose and context of the legislation did not warrant a narrower interpretation of "investigation." Crucially, the Court determined that Dataflex's voluntary disclosure was made before any investigation had commenced, and therefore, the penalty should be reduced under section 33.

The Court ordered that the parties were to bring in short minutes of order giving effect to these reasons.