PETROL TAX REBATE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3996, 14 October 1930, Page 47

PETROL TAX REBATE.

CHARGE AGAINST FARMER.

MAGISTRATE DISMISSES CASE. CHRISTCHURCH, October 9. A case of great interest to farmers and only the second of its kind to be heard in New Zealand was heard in the Magistrates Court to-day. It concerned the securing of the rebate on petrol used for running tractors and other farm machinery. and, in dismissing the case, Mr E. D Mosley, S.M., had some remarks to make in regard to the administration of this section of the Act.

David Henry Butcher, a farmer, of Broadfields, was charged with, on July 31, at Lincoln, making a claim under section 8 of the Motor Spirits Tax Act, 1927, which was false in a material particular. Mr W. J. Sim appeared for Butcher, who pleaded not guilty. SenidV Sergeant J. J. O'Grady conducted the case for the police.

Outlining the case for the prosecution, Senior Sergeant O’Grady said that the accused was a farmer who,’ in the course of his work, used a tractor, and under the Act under which this charge was preferred he was entitled to a rebate of 4d a gallon on all petrol used in that tractor. He had made an application for a rebate on 76 gallons at the end of the second quarter in 1930, stating the claim on one of the forms provided for that purpose at the post offices. He was informed that he could not secure the rebate on the full quantity, as 40 gallons of that amount had been used in the first quarter of 1930, and, according to the regulations, if the claim was not made for it within one month after the end of the first quarter, no rebate was payable on it. When told of this, Butcher had made the excuse that he had purchased a 40-gallon drum, which was not used entirely in the first quarter. He amended hie claim to apply to 36 gallons. Mr Sim, addressing the magistrate, said that the prosecution was one which alleged dishonest practice on the part of Butcher. Such, he maintained, was not the case at all. He produced a form which was similar to that used in making application to the rebate

“ A farmer has to state what make of machine he is using, what the horse power of that machine is, how many men he employs for the kind of work for which the machine is used, and innumerable other things, too,” he continued. “ Other farmers in the same district as the accused and in neighbouring districts do not make application for rebates for the very reason that the form is so complicated, and they are frightened of it. There is no suggestion that this man was not originally entitled to a rebate on the 40 gallons referred to, and when it was pointed out to him that he could not get that rebate owing to the lateness of the application, he amended it and forsook the claim for the 40 gallons. In point of fact. Butcher did not use the whole of that quantity in the first quarter of the year, and, upon being informed that he could not apply for a rebate until the whole of the drum was used, he held the application in abeyance. He is a perfectly honest farmer. and it was a perfectly honest mistake, and yet we have all this machinery turning over it. I ask that the caee be dismissed as trivial.”

“ The offence is a’ highly penal one,” said Mr Mosley. “Under"this section the accused is liable to a fine of £5O, or three months’ imprisonment. I have come to the conclusion that Butcher and his father are decent, honest farmers, who had no intention to defraud. Ae a matter of fact, they have not defrauded the department, and it is not a case for any penalty. The only reason for the case is to make farmers particular when making such claims as these. Farmers have to rely on the intelligence of the post office officials,' and those should be able to make it clear to farmers what is required in making these or similar applications so as to avoid laying themselves open to prosecution. The case is dismissed.”