WEA Records Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation

[1990] FCA 590

IN THE FEDERAL COURT O F AUSTRALIA	1
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	) No. G 76 of 1989
)
GENERAL DIVISION	1

l-	:
i	~
i
I .

BETWEEN:	WEA RECORDS PTY LIMITED	I
;
I

Applicant	I
L
i , -

AND:	COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION	L	L
1 -

Respondent :

m.	Davies J.
Date.	2 October 1990
Place:	Sydney

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EX TEMPORE

< I	.I
I.

Thls matter comes before me to finalize the orders of the Court, in accordance . .

with the reasons for decision which were given on 29 August 1990.

1 -'

I '

The parties are in agreement that the applicant's appeal to the Court should be

l -:

allowed and that the decision of the respondent with respect to the applicant's notice of objection I ; 1

he set aside.	However, counsel are not in agreement as to the order proposed by Mr Sullivan,	; I
i :  I ,

counsel for the applicant, that the assessment be remitted to the respondent to be dealt with in

/ / .

accordance with law. Mr Stevens, counsel for the respondent, has po~ntcd out that this order may

i

be unnecessary because there is a duty already imposcd upon the Commissioner pursuant to	'I:	!
i

section 4213 of the Salet Tax Azressment Act (No 1) 1930 (Cth) to give effect 10 the Courl's I . ,

ordcr That may be so, but it seems to me to be tidier and nlorc complcte for the Court to deal in full with the mattcr by specifically remitting the matter to the Commissioner for

implementation. I will make that order. It is not inconsistent with section 42H. To comply with

the timc limit and dnty imposed by that section is to deal with the mattcr in accordance with law.

The next issue arises as to the costs of the appeal. Mr Sullivan asks for costs of

thc proceedings and Mr Stcvens contends that the Commissioner should pay only 50 per cent of

the applicant's costs, having succeeded on one of thc questions set aside for separate consideration. The matter is in the discret~on of the Court. On thc whole it sccms to me that there was really only one matter in dispute between the parties, that 1s whether or not the

applicant was bound to pay sales tax.

The matter could have proceeded just as an ordinary proceeding and, if the
applicant had so proceedcd and thc applicant had been successful, as in my view i t would have
been, thcn the applicant would ordinarily have received the costs of the procccdings

notwithstandlng that the applicant may have failed on one argument put. As it was, the parties set aside two questions for separate determination. That, of course, did not add to the length of the hearing; ~ndeed, in my opinion, i t cxpedited the hcaring and very much facilitated i t by

making it clear what were the fundamental questions to which consideration should be given.

Neither question was totally discretc from the other for the facts that werc

relevant to the one were very much facts relevant to the other and a consideration of both

questions was necessary to a full understanding of thc matter.

It appears to me that the applica~~tshould have its costs of the proceedings as there

was really only one matter in dispute and the applicant has succeeded upon that and there was nothing done by the applicant which added in any way to the costs whlch would be resulted in the p~oceeding

For those reasons, I will make orders in accordance with the short minutes

proposed by Mr Sollivan.

I cer t~fy that this and the preceding 2 pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Mr Justice Davies

Associate.

Date. 2 October 1990