J M BESTALL and COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE

The matter before the court involved a dispute between J M Bestall and the Commissioner of State Revenue concerning the application of a residential exemption to land tax. The dispute was heard and determined in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The applicant, who owned multiple lots of land, argued that the land should be exempt from land tax as it was established and used as an integrated area for private residential purposes. The Commissioner of State Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the applicant's land did not qualify for the exemption.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's lots were established and used as an integrated area for private residential purposes, thus qualifying for the exemption. A secondary issue was whether the taxpayer's intention was relevant to the determination of the exemption, and whether physical changes to the property during a financial year could affect the exemption status during that year. The court was required to consider these issues in light of the relevant statutory provisions and the evidence presented by the parties.

The court found that the lots were not established and used as an integrated area for private residential purposes, and therefore did not qualify for the exemption. The court held that the relevant statutory provisions did not require the lots to be physically contiguous, but did require them to be established and used as an integrated area. The court found that the applicant's lots were not established and used as an integrated area, as they were not used for the same purpose and were not under the same control. The court also found that the taxpayer's intention was not relevant to the determination of the exemption, and that physical changes to the property during a financial year could not affect the exemption status during that year.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant's objections to the assessments were disallowed, and that the Commissioner of State Revenue's decisions were affirmed. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding.