LIABLE TO DUTY?

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVIII, Issue 76, 26 February 1938, Page 10

LIABLE TO DUTY?

RECEIPTS FOR GOODS. MAGISTRATE’S DECISION. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Feb. 25. A judgment of considerable importance to retailers and others engaged in business was delivered by Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court this morning. . The Commissioner of Stamps laid informations against each of four defendant companies, Boots the Chemists (New Zealand) Ltd., Hallenstein Bros., Ltd., R. Hannan and Co., Ltd., and W. H. Tisdall and Co., Ltd., alleging that they had written or caused to be written a receipt liable to duty without the receipt being duly stamped. Dr. N. A. Foden appeared for the informant, Mr lan Macarthur for Boots. Mr W. P. Shorland for Hallenstein’s and Hannah’s, and Mr H. F. Bollard for Tisdall’s.

“The question involved in these cases is of considerable importance to retail shopkeepers who sell for cash,” said Mr Luxford. “The practice of giving a cash customer a docket or invoice setting out particulars of the goods purchased and the prices charged is an integral part of the bookkeeping of most shopkeepers. The carbon copy is used for record purposes, while the original enables the customer to check over the articles he has bought. It also acts as a check o nthe ship assistant, for the customer would see at a glance whether the exact amount of cash paid tallied with the amount entered on the docket. The customer’s name does not appear on the docket ,although in some cases a place is left for the name to be filled in. Sometimes the purchaser keeps the docket; often he crumples it up after he has glanced at it. The form of the dockets given by the four defendants differ from one another, and counsel depicted their arguments to whether the documents were receipts within the meaning of the Act. I reserved my decision on that question, and when considering the matter subsequently I came to the conclusion that, assuming the documents were receipts, I'had first to decide whether thev were receipts liable to duty.” After discussing the legal position, Mr Luxford said that the clear intention of the Legislature,, in bis opinion, was to divide receipts into two classes; those liable to duty and those not liable. A document acknowledging the payment of less than £2 was not a receipt at all within the meaning or the Act. . , “It mav be that the Legislature intended only to exempt from duty over-

seas receipts, and used the words ‘executed in New Zealand’ without realising their implication. As to that I will not express an opinion. The fact remains that sections 176 and 177 are capable of a reasonable construction, namely, that certain written documents, are reecipts but only those signed in New Zealand are liable to duty. . . _ , “A doubt exists in my mind whether a body corporate is Jiable to conviction under section 179, except in respect of a receipt under its common seal. It is true that a receipt not under seal may be given in respect of money paid to the body corporate. but the wording of section 177, which must be read with section 179, seems to indicate that the word ■person’ in section 179 does not include a body corporate. However, I do not propose to go into that, nor into the question of whether the particular documents are receipts. “The interpretation I have placed on the words ‘executed in New Zealand’ may have far-reaching consequences, and will no doubt considered in appeal proceedings. Should that be so the further questions can be dealt with by the Supremo Court. “I will therefore dismiss all the informations on the ground that the documents in question, if they are receipts, are unsigned, and so not liable to duty.”