Munro v Marketing and Publicity Consultants Pty Ltd

[1988] TASSC 60

Serial No 59/1988
List “A”

COURT:                 SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION:            Munro v Marketing and Publicity Consultants Pty Ltd [1988] TASSC 60; A59/1988

PARTIES:  MUNRO
  v

MARKETING AND PUBLICITY CONSULTANTS PTY LTD

FILE NO/S:  59/1988
DELIVERED ON:  6 December 1988
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood J

Number of paragraphs:                5

Serial No 59/1988

List "A"

File No LCA 119/1988

MUNRO v MARKETING AND PUBLICITY CONSULTANTS
PTY LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  UNDERWOOD J

6 December 1988

1. This is a motion to review a fine of $75 imposed by a magistrate on six convictions for a breach of the Taxation Administration Act, s8C. The single ground of appeal is that the penalty was manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the case. This appeal was heard in conjunction with three other similar appeals. I refer to the reasons for judgment handed down in the appeal of O'Brien v ADC Sport Pty Ltd and, insofar as those reasons deal with matters of general principle, I incorporate them in these reasons for judgment.

1. Unlike the respondents in the other three matters this respondent was represented by counsel, both in the court below and on appeal. In the Court of Petty Sessions counsel entered a plea of guilty to all six matters of complaint on behalf of the corporate respondent. Each matter of complaint alleged a failure to furnish information required under the sales tax legislation. The notices were issued each month between September 1987 and February 1988 inclusive and required information for the months of July – December 1987 respectively. The prosecutor told the learned magistrate that the respondent was a manufacturer of art work, had no prior convictions and that, "the average six monthly sales tax payable is not available".

1. In mitigation of penalty counsel told the magistrate:

1        The respondent company was one of a group of companies under "the Banks Paton umbrella".

2In July 1987 a new accountant was employed. The officers of the company believed that the new accountant was aware of the obligations on the respondent with respect to lodgment of sales tax returns but that belief turned out to be erroneous.

3"For some reason the provisions of the final notices were overlooked by the accountant who sought no direction from other officers of the company."

4The returns have been lodged, all subsequent returns have been lodged and the affairs of the respondent company put in order.

5For two months no sales tax was payable. For the remaining four months a total of $690 was payable and has been paid.

1. Notwithstanding all those matters a fine of $75 on conviction for six matters of complaint is manifestly inadequate. The ignorance of the respondent’s employee is an explanation but not an excuse for the failure to furnish returns when required to do so. Corporate tax payers are responsible for ensuring that the obligations under the sales tax legislation are complied with. Of particular significance in this case is the continued failure to furnish the information over a period of six months, notwithstanding the monthly receipt of notices requiring that information.

1. The application is allowed and the penalty set aside. As this is an appropriate case for the imposition of a single penalty for all matters of complaint I impose a fine of $850 on the complaint.