prints, whether enlarged or not, for the payment of sales tax ascer- tained in the manner prescribed by the Act and regulations there- under on the sale value of all such prints.
The question reserved for the opinion of the Court was
Are the prints goods manufactured in Australia within the
meaning of the Sales Tax Assessment Act 1930-1935 ? It was agreed between the parties that if the question were answered in the affirmative judgment was to be entered for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs, the amount SO entered to be subject to a penalty, as prescribed by sec. 29 of the Act, at the rate of ten per cent per annum from 22nd January 1935 to the date of payment and that if the question were answered in the negative judgment was to be entered for the defendant with costs.
E. M. Mitchell K.C. (with him Betts), for the plaintiff. McIntosh, for the defendant.
Cur. adv. vult. The following written judgments were delivered :-
RICH, DIXON AND McTIERNAN JJ. We think this case is stronger in favour of the Crown than that of Riley (1), judgment in which is delivered to-day.
In our opinion the order should be :-Question in the special case answered Yes. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, enter judgment in the action for the plaintiff for £4 11s. 11d. with costs.
STARKE J. The defendant carries on the business of developing photograph films exposed by amateur photographers, and making prints from the films after development. The films and the prints are handed over to the taxpayer's customers on payment of a charge made by the defendant. The question submitted by the parties is whether the prints are goods manufactured in Australia within the meaning of the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1) 1930-1935. In my opinion, the answer should be in the affirmative, and for the reasons given by me in the photography case (Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Riley (1) ).
Judgment should follow the agreement of the parties.