SALES TAX EVADED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22018, 26 January 1935, Page 12

SALES TAX EVADED

ERRONEOUS RETURNS BROTHERS FINED £SO EACH " These people seem to have perpetrated what can only be described as a rank fraud," said Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S».M., in the Police Court yesterday when Michael, Herbert and Boss Facoory, trading as Facoory 'Bros., footwear manufacturers, were each charged with a breach of the Sales Tax Act. The defendants were represented by Mr. Schramm. It was alleged that the defendants on or about October 5, with intent to defraud the revenue by evading payment of part of the sales tax on goods sold during August, had made a return of the goods sold which was erroneous, in that the total sale value of the goods sold was shown as £7l 5s 9d, whereas the total sale value was £236 12s. Defendants pleaded guilty. Mr. R. Meredith, who prosecuted on behalf of the Taxation Department, said the case before the Court was regarded as a serious one. It was considered that the defendants had deliberately evaded payment of sales tax and defraudfed the revenue. For such an offence they were liable to a fine of £IOO, or a fine three times the sale value of the goods, whichever was the greater amount. Mr. Schramm said he understood the proceedings were being brought as & warning to others. There was no defence, as there was no doubt erroneous returns had been put in. The penalty was a heavy one, but in the case before the Court he asked that the minimum penalty might be imposed. " The Legislature always considers fraud against the revenue of the country a matter of grave importance," said the magistrate. Evidence of that was the fact that it provided for u term of imprisonment, without the option of a fine, if the offence were repeated. Each defendant would be fined £SO. BETURN NOT MADE PENALTY OF £25 IMPOSED A charge of failing to make a return under the Sales Tax Act for February Jast was preferred against E. J. Paterson, a wholesaler, in the Police Court yesterday. Defendant said the reason he had not made a return was because he had done no business that month. His premises were now closed. The magistrate fined defendant £25.