Gales Holdings v Chief Commissioner

[2008] NSWSC 532

CITATION:	Gales Holdings v Chief Commissioner [2008] NSWSC 532
HEARING DATE(S):	30 May 2008
JUDGMENT OF:	Gzell J
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	30 May 2008
DECISION:	Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	TAXES AND DUTIES - Procedure - Land Tax - Exemption claimed on basis land is for primary production under the Land Tax Management Act 1956, s 10AA(1) or s 10A(2) - Plaintiff granted exclusive licence over land - Alleged that licensees used land for primary production - Whether matter should proceed by way of pleadings to draw out whether defendant regarded activities of plaintiff as relevant - Pleadings not usual in Revenue List
LEGISLATION CITED:	Land Tax Management Act 1956
PARTIES:	Gales Holdings Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 1529/08
COUNSEL:	Mr J C Giles (Plaintiff) Mr R L Hamilton SC / Ms R Seiden (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Woolf Associates Solicitors (Plaintiff) Crown Solicitor's Office (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

GZELL J

FRIDAY 30 MAY 2008

1529/08 GALES HOLDINGS PT LTD v CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE

JUDGMENT

1 A notice of motion has been filed in this matter seeking two orders. First, that a notice to produce dated 14 April 2008 served by the defendant on the plaintiff be set aside and, secondly, that the action proceed by way of pleadings.

2 The notice to produce is not to be called at this juncture and that limb of the notice of motion is not agitated before me today.

3 The Plaintiff claims that the land in question was used for primary production and exempt from land tax under the Land Tax Management Act 1956, s 10AA(1) or s 10AA(2).

4 A draft statement of claim has been handed to me. In par 3 there are assertions that the plaintiff did not use the land for primary production but the persons to whom it had granted an exclusive licence did. It was submitted that pleadings were appropriate to draw out whether or not the Defendant relied upon the activities of the Plaintiff or the activities of the licensees in denying the exemption. It was submitted that it was apparent from the documents identified in the notice to produce that the Defendant regarded the activities of the Plaintiff as being relevant.

5 The practice in the Revenue List has been to rely upon facts sworn in affidavits and full written submissions that then elucidate the basis upon which relief is claimed.

6 I do not see a reason to depart from that course in this case. It seems to me that the matter can be the subject of evidence adduced by affidavit on both sides augmented by the written submissions which I will order be delivered in due course. I therefore dismiss par 1 of the notice of motion.

**********