MOTOR SPIRITS TAX

Southland Times, Issue 21578, 16 December 1931, Page 8

MOTOR SPIRITS TAX

ALLEGED FALSE CLAIM CASE HEARD AT GORE. An interesting case was heard at Gore yesterday morning when Robert Aitken appeared before Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M., charged with making a false claim under the Motor Spirits Taxation Act, 1927, to the registrar of motor .vehicles for a refund of taxation on 130 gallons of petrol, by falsely stating that such petrol was used during the quarter ending June 30, 1931. . Sergeant Fryer mentioned that the proceedings were taken under instructions from the registrar of motor vehicles, M ellington. He said it appeared that on July 31 the defendant put in a claim for a refund on 577 gallons of petrol used in his tractor. His statement alleged that the whole of that amount of petrol was used in the quarter ending in June. Evidence, however, would show that at least some portion of the 130 gallons in dispute was used in the quarter ending in March. When the claim was made some doubt was raised as to it being correct, but the defendant persisted in the statement that it was all in order. Reginald W. Noakes, postmaster, Gore, stated that on July 31 the defendant made an application for a refund on taxation for motor spirit used in a tractor. It was a claim for a refund of sixpence per gallon on 577 gallons of petrol. Certain invoices were attached to the claim and one of these showed that 130 gallons had been purchased in January. Witness advised defendant that it appeared doubtful whether this 130 gallons had been used in the June quarter, but defendant stated that it was and signed a declaration to that effect. To counsel for defendant: As far as he could ascertain defendant had so far made only one application for refund. He would have been entitled to a refund for petrol previously used if he had made application at the proper time. The defendant was quite frank about when the petrol had been purchased and if witness had known that he had not claimed for the March quarter the trouble might not have arisen. By making the declaration the defendant was not getting anything he could not have got had he made his claim at the proper time. To the Magistrate: None of the claims had been paid. J. White, tractor driver on defendant’s estate at Waipahi, stated that in January 40 gallons of petrol were purchased on behalf of the defendant. This was used at the end of January and early in February. An additional 90 gallons were purchased in February, but this was not used until April. Counsel for the defendant stated that for the major portion of the year defendant was not on the property and had to rely on his employees for information as to when the petrol was used. A considerable amount of petrol was used on the property and defendant had used about 20,000 gallons for which no refund had been claimed. In January, however, he made a claim and produced a voucher for 130 gallons. He was told by the then postmaster that he could not claim for it until the petrol was used. As it was not until April that the last of the 130 gallons was used he did not claim for it until after the end of the June quarter. Mr Noakes was apparently misled as he thought that defendant had made a claim for the March quarter and understood the defendant to allege that the whole of the 130 gallons had been used in the June quarter. If he had known that no claim had been made for the March quarter, Mr Noakes would have put the defendant right and informed him that he could not claim for Qmy petrol used prior to the beginning of the June quarter. Counsel contended that the case was a trivial one as the defendant was clearly entitled to considerably more than he had claimed and also to the rebate on the greater part of the 130 gallons. He suggested that the matter had been entirely due to a misunderstanding and that there had been no attempt to evade. The Magistrate remarked that there had apparently been a mistake on defendant’s part and he was not claiming for anything to which he was not entitled if he had made his claim at the proper time. He was, however, a man of more than average intelligence and as such should have taken the necessary precautions to see that everything was in order.

Defendant was convicted and fined 20/and ordered to pay costs 10/-.