Very Important Business Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Very Important Business Pty Ltd (VIB) against assessments issued by the Commissioner of Taxation concerning goods and services tax (GST). The dispute centred on VIB's entitlement to input tax credits (ITCs) for purported acquisitions of scrap gold and other items. VIB argued that these acquisitions were of taxable supplies, entitling it to full ITCs. The Commissioner contended that some of these supplies were input-taxed, or that VIB had not discharged its burden of proof regarding the nature of the acquisitions and the quantum of any claimed ITCs. The case was heard by R J Olding SM.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether VIB's acquisitions of scrap gold and other items from certain suppliers constituted creditable acquisitions for GST purposes, and consequently, whether VIB was entitled to the full input tax credits it claimed. Specifically, the court had to determine if the purported acquisitions of scrap gold included input-taxed supplies of precious metal, and if VIB's subsequent supplies of refined metal included input-taxed supplies. A further issue was the interpretation of "regularly converts or refines" precious metal in the context of the GST legislation. The court also considered whether VIB had discharged its burden of proving that the Commissioner's assessments were excessive, and if so, what the correct amount of the assessment should be.

The court found that VIB had not discharged its burden of proving that the Commissioner's assessments were excessive, particularly in relation to its argument that it acquired only gold bars, which were not considered "precious metals" for GST purposes. The evidence presented by VIB regarding its acquisitions from Cash and Gold Exchange and Gold N Pawn was insufficient to establish that these did not include precious metal or that VIB was entitled to full ITCs. The court noted inconsistencies in witness testimony and a lack of detailed record-keeping, making it impossible to ascertain the precise nature of the acquisitions or the proportion of any creditable purpose. Furthermore, the court was unable to determine whether VIB had any entitlement to other contested ITCs or to quantify any such entitlement based on the evidence and submissions before it. The court emphasised the importance of proper record-keeping and the applicant's obligation to prove its case, not merely to challenge the Commissioner's assessment.