THE SALES TAX

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22070, 28 September 1933, Page 8

THE SALES TAX

FIRST PROSECUTION CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT’S ADMINISTRATION MAGISTRATE’S SEVERE CRITICISM. (Peb United Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, September 27. Severe criticism of the Customs Department and its administration of the sales tax regulations was expressed by Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, when the first prosecution in New Zealand was brought by the department under the Sales Tax Act, 1932-33. The magistrate characterised certain actions of the department in the case under his notice as illegal, and suggested in view of the facts that two of the three charges should be withdrawn. To the collector of Customs and Sales Tax for Christchurch (Mr C. O. Trownson) L the magistrate suggested that the department was making a scapegoat of the firm concerned. On the third count the Sterling Clothing, Manufacturing Company, Ltd., was charged with failing to deliver to the Collector of Sales Tax a return setting out the aggregate amount of sales value of all taxable goods sold by the company during the month ended May 19. Similar charges were laid in respect of the months ended June 19 and July 19. Mr Trownsori asked for a conviction on all three charges as a warning to other firms. He did not ask for a fine. The magistrate: Yes, hut the Act fixes the minimum penalty. I cannot fine the defendant less than £25 on each charge if I convict him. Why does the department not prosecute other firms? You bring three charges and apparently ask me to fine this defendant £75 as a warning. Why pick on this particular, firm? _ ■ Mr Trownson said the department intended td prosecute other firms which had been guilty of' the offence. The department was not ‘ prosecuting as a warning altogether. It regarded . the offence as serious. The magistrate: Of course it is serious, and the Act provides for its seriousness, but you want to rub it in by prosecuting three times over. The magistrate, after further discussion with Mr Trownson, said the department had apparently imposed on the defendant a 15 per cent, penalty which it had no right to impose. Provided the tax were paid bn the day the. return ■ was made a remission of 5 per cent, was allowed for in the Act, and if it were not paid within two months of- making the return a 10 pfer cent, penalty was payable. The defendant had complied with the conditions, hut had not been allowed discount and the penalty had been charged later. . The magistrate remarked that as the department had bungled the whole matter it was questionable whether any penalty should he imposed. Eventually two of the charges were withdrawn and the magistrate reserved his decision on the third. This would enable counsel for the defendant to apply for a refund of the penalties and a remission of the minimum fine;