State (Multiprint Label Systems Ltd) v Neylon

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Finlay P.,
• Judgment Date: 27 February 1984
• Neutral Citation: 1984 WJSC-HC 1540
• Docket Number: No. 714 S.S./1983
• Court: High Court
• Date: 27 February 1984

1984 WJSC-HC 1540

THE HIGH COURT

No. 714 S.S./1983

State (MULTIPRINT LABEL SYSTEMS) v NEYLON

THE STATE AT THE PROSECUTION OF MULTIPRINT LABEL SYSTEMSLIMITED

Prosecutors

-and-

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS NEYLON

Respondent

Words & Phrases: Immediately

Subject Headings:

PRACTICE: procedure

JUDICIAL REVIEW: mandamus

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: time limit

1 Judgment of Finlay P.,delivered the 27th day of February, 1984.

2 This is an Application to make absolute notwithstanding cause shown a Conditional Order of Mandamus granted by The High Court on the 12th of December, 1983 directing the learned Respondent to state a case pursuant to the provisions of Section 430 of the Income Tax Act, 1967to The High Court for the determination of certain questions of law arising from an appeal brought by the Prosecutor before the learned Respondent in respect of certain assessments of Corporation Tax

3 The facts on which this Application is based are not in dispute and may be summarised as follows:-

4 1. On the 25th of July, 1983 the Prosecutors appealed against the Appeal Commissioners" determination of their liability to Corporation Tax, the subject matter of the appeal being their claim for entitlement to export sales relief. The appeal was held before the Respondent as President of the Circuit Court.

5 2. The Prosecutor at the hearing of that appeal was represented by the Taxation Manager of a firm of Chartered Accountants.

6 3. The Respondent found in favour of the Revenue Commissioners at the conclusion of the appeal and determined that the Prosecutors were not entitled to export sales relief pursuant to the Corporation Tax Act, 1976, Section 58 and Section 54.

7 Questions of law arose on the hearing of the appeal before the learned Respondent and were involved in his determination of that Appeal, Shortly they may be summarised as involving, firstlythe question as to whether the price at which a company which had purchased goods from an associated company in Ireland sold them on export to a purchaser in the United Kingdom should be the price to be computed under Section 62 of the Corporation Tax Act, 1976as that which would have obtained if the transaction had been a transaction between independent persons dealing with each other, secondly the question as to whether it was upon the Appellant to disprove the application to him of Section 62 of the Act of 1976 or whether the onus was upon the Revenue Commissioners to prove the application of the Section to them, and thirdly questions concerning the meaning of control in Section 62 as assigned to it by Section 158 of the Act of 1976.

8 4. At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal before the learned Respondent which occurred at about 3.30 p.m., the representative of the Prosecutor did not express dissatisfaction with the determination of the Respondent as being erroneous on a point of law.

9 5. On the same date upon return to his office the Prosecutors"representative realised his omission and sought to deliver that evening but too late, a letter to the Respondent at the Circuit Court expressing dissatisfaction. On the following morning the 27th of July, 1983 there was delivered on behalf of the Prosecutors a letter addressed to the Respondent in the following terms:-

"In accordance with Section 430 Income Tax Act, 1967we wish on behalf of our client to declare dissatisfaction with your determination of the appeals against the assessments for the accounting periods ended the 31st of October, 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981, yesterday, as being erroneous in point of law. As required by Section 430 we shall write directly to the County Registrar requesting a case to bestated for the opinion of The High Court. We appreciate that where appropriate, dissatisfaction is normally expressed in Court and we regret that our representative overlooked this yesterday. In the circumstances we would be very much obliged if you would accept this letter as complying with the statutory requirement."

10 To that letter a reply was received written by the County Registrar and dated the 27th of July, 1983 as follows:-

"The President of the Circuit Court has asked me to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 26th instant concerning the above matter. He wishes me to state that he has no discretion in the matter. The terms of the Section must be strictly complied with."

11 Upon the obtaining of the Conditional Order of Mandamus it was directed to be served on the County Registrar for the Respondent and on the Revenue Solicitor for the Revenue Commissioners. The learned Respondent filed an Affidavit dealing with the facts of the matter. The Revenue Commissioners were represented at the hearing before me and made the appropriate and necessary contentions against the making absolute of theOrder.

12 On these facts the issues of law which arise on the hearing of this Application are as follows:-

13 (a) Whether the Prosecutors complied with the provisions of Section 428(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1967incorporated to apply to these proceedings by Section 430 of the same Act wherein it it is provided:-

"Immediately after the determination of an appeal by the special Commissioners the Appellant or the Inspector, if dissatisfied with the determination as being erroneous inpoint of law, may declare his dissatisfaction to the Commissioners who heard the appeal."

14 (b) If there was non-compliance with that sub-section as applied is it to be construed as mandatory and default to be fatal to the bringing of an appeal by case stated or is it directory only?

15 (c) Whether there was compliance...