REFUND ON BENZINE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 76, Issue 107, 9 May 1933, Page 9

REFUND ON BENZINE

RIVER SERVICES FINED MOTOR SPIRIT ACT BROKEN. SALE TO LAUNCH OWNERS. As & result of being proceeded against by the police for making a claim under Section 85 of the Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1927, that was false in material particulars, Wanganui River Services, Ltd., was fined £3 by Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court at Wanganui yesterday. It was claimed by the police that the company had been selling benzine to private launch owners and then claiming a refund of 6d a gallon, in accordance with the Act, the general application of which is that persons using benzine for motor vehicles not travelling on roads may claim a refund. Mr. R. M. S. Jones, of Hunterville, who appeared for the company, held that the arrangement had been made with the launch owners for benefit through the generosity of the company. There had been no loss to the public revenue while the company had been 3|d per gallon out of pocket until the refund was made. Mr. Salmon agreed that the Crown had not been deprived of revenue but considered it was a case for a moderate fine in order to draw attention to the provisions of the Act. Senior-Sergeant Capp said that the charge wag laid under Section 85 of the Motor Spirits Taxation Act, 1927. He pointed out that the company had about ten boats and owned a bowser at the wharf where the boats were supplied with benzine; pnvately-owned launches and other motor vehicles were also supplied. At the end of each quarter the company applied, under the Act, for a refund of 6d a gallon on benzine used in the boats and launches but not on the other vehicles. In a statement dated October 10, 1932, defendant’s company had claimed a refund of 1610 gallons, making a declaration that the whole of the benzine was used in the Wakapai. The claim, said the senior sergeant, was wrong, in that other vessels and other private launches had been using the benzine. The most serious charge was that benzine had been supplied to other launch owners, who had been charged Is 6d a gallon, and the company had applied for a refund. He was satisfied that there had been no dishonest intention on the part of the company. Mr. Salmon: The effect is to deprive the Crown of a good deal of revenue The Senior Sergeant: By selling it to the private owners defendant relieved them of making a declaration under the Act. No Retail Trade. Mr. Jones agreed with the facts as set out by the senior sergeant except those concerning revenue. The company, which owned the Dowser, were not engaged in a great retail cash trade of benzine. Their supplies were used almost solely for their own boats, two motor vehicles and for supplies to one or two customers, who did not patronnise the company regularly. Counsel produced a book showing that the company had kept very accurate records of all benzine that came out of the bowser. Every gallon was charged to the respective vehicles whether launch, taxi or boat, and the sales were watched with meticulous care. The basis of the charge seemed to be chiefly the sale by tile company to private launch owners of benzine for consumption in their launches. The other part of the charge referring to the naming of one vessel when ten were owned, did not, to his mind, entail a great deal of falsity. When the Act came into force on February 1, 1928, the company’s predecessor was running boats on the river and the clerk of the old company, who was in charge of the company’s operations, interviewed an official of the Post Office and discussed the matter of filling in a form. Apparently an arrangement was made whereby the old company should show only the name of one vessel instead of ten. The form conduced that state of affairs, because it did not set out clearly whether all the names of the vessels were to be inserted nor any directions as to whether more than one vessel used was to be shown on the fi’e. The heading required the total benzine purchased to be inserted, but in the body of the form it appeared that only the name of one vessel was sufficient. With regard to part of the defect in the claim council submitted that it was not a material defect. The whole of the vessels had been set out as being used in the Wakapai only. Mr. Salmon: Is that the charge? It simply says “did make a claim. . . . that is false in material particulars.” Do you say that the falsity lies in the fact that only one vessel was mentioned, senior sergeant? Senior-Sergeant Capp: There is only one vessel mentioned, but benzine was also supplied to private launch owners and the company made a claim for a refund. The launch owners paid Is 6d a gallon and the River Services made a claim. A total of 99 gallons had been sold by the company to the launch owners, the amount of refund for which totalled £2 10s. Company Provides Benzine. Mr. Jones said that some five or six launch owners had been in the habit of buying benzine for launches from the River Services because tne owners, although entitled to a refund, had not bothered about it previously as the amount had been small. It was arranged with the company, therefore, that the launch owners should nuy tticlr benzine for Is 6d, which would have been the price they would have paid i if they had though it retail and then applied for a refund, or whether the company, on the owners’ behalf, applied for a refund. “The company out of sheer generosity of heart agreed to allow the launch owners to have their benzine at Is 6d a gallon and the company said it would apply for tho refund itself,” said Mr. Jones. 44 No loss was occasioned to the public revenue for this reason, that the benzine which the company sold to the private launch owners cost the company Is 9J«I a gallon. It sold it at Is 6d, thereby standing out 3jd a gallon between the date the benzine was sold and the date the refund was received. At the end of the quarter a refund of 6d a gallon was paid to the company, who then only got the balance of 3jd per gallon on the purchase price and another 2|d, after waiting three or more months to get not only the balance- o? their purchase price but the very small profit per gallon. The arrangement was the same ag if the launch owner bought

his own benzine and claimed a refund Mr. Jones pointed out several facts facts in favour of the company. He said the Post Office were saved having to deal with six or seven small claims. Mr. Salmon: I see there are a number of supplies to the Wanganui Brewery and other private people. Did this go in the claim for the refund? Mr. Jones: That is a complete record of the benzine sold. Only the benzine used in the vessels is claimed for a refund. Another point in the company’s favour, he said, was that when the police interviewed them a complete statement was given as to what had occurred. Nothing was held back and the whole position was candidly stated. The sale of benzine to the" launch owners had been stopped and the company had lost the opportunity of a refund on the benzine sold to the launch owners during the quarter the police had proceeded against them. He submitted that the offence was technical. . A s there was no element of mens rea in the case he had advised the company not to defend, but had that element been present the charge would have been defended. Not one penny revenue had been lost and it was only the method under which the application had been made which had resulted in the charge being brought against the company. He asked that the company be not penalised beyond the payment of costs. Magistrate’s Decision. “The only cases of this nature to come before the Court so far have been those of farmers who were entitled to a refund on motor spirit used for their milking machines,” said Air. Salmon. ‘‘But by their negligence, or otherwise, they had included all benzine used on the farm. This is a case in which a company is concerned. Now the Act, I think, looks for the utmost good faith on the part of the companies making declarations for a refund. The penalty provided is a s much as a £5O fine. In the present case the prosecution agrees that the amount is limited to 99 gallons supplied to private owners. Taking into regard tho amount involved and the fact that the company has not really deprived the Crown of revenue. I think it is a case for a moderate fine. But a fine must be imposed in order to draw attention to the provision of the Act and the Act as detailed. The company will he convicted and fined £3 and costs.” The costs amounted to 13a»