Chief Collector of Taxes v Bougainville Copper Limited and SCA No 56 of 2005; Bougainville Copper Limited v Chief Collector of Taxes (2007) SC853

JurisdictionPapua New Guinea
CourtSupreme Court
Citation(2007) SC853
Year2007
Docket NumberSCA No 50 of 2005
Date02 February 2007

Full Title: SCA No 50 of 2005; Chief Collector of Taxes v Bougainville Copper Limited and SCA No 56 of 2005; Bougainville Copper Limited v Chief Collector of Taxes (2007) SC853

Supreme Court: Kapi, CJ, Sevua J, and Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 2 February 2007

1 APPEALS—PRACTICE & PROCEDURE—Appeal against interlocutory decision lifting interim stay and injunction—Questions of fact raised in appeal—Leave required to raise questions of fact—Section 14(1)(2),(3) Supreme Court Act.

APPEALS—PRACTICE & PROCEDURE—Appellant raising issues not raised before trial judge—Appellant at no liberty to raise new points on appeal except with the agreement of the parties—Right of Appeal exists only against exercise of a trial judge’s decision on issues raised before him.

APPEALS—PRACTICE & PROCEDURE—Appeal against exercise of discretion of a trial judge—Appellant obliged to demonstrate identifiable and serious error warranting interference by Appellate Court before Supreme Court can interfere with trial judge’s decision.

CONSTITUTION—Income Tax Act—Whether requirement or policy of pay now litigate later harsh and oppressive within the meaning of s.41 of the Constitution—No equity in tax legislation—Law necessary for the support of public programs—Whether Chief Collector of Taxes issuance of statutory garnishee notices to taxpayer amounting to an abuse of his powers and therefore harsh and oppressive—Taxpayer under obligation to adduce appropriate evidence to establish claim of abuse or harsh and oppressive exercise of power—Taxpayer failing in its obligation—No case of abuse or harsh or oppressive exercise of power.

INJUNCTION—Application for interim injunction pending arbitration—Relevant issues and principles governing grant or refusal of relief considered—Requirements for undertaking as to damages and demonstrating a serious question to be determined at the trial or an arguable case on the merits not met—Effect of—Detrimental to grant of relief sought—Trial judge correct in declining grant of stay and injunction.

LEGISLATION—Proper construction of tax legislation—Interpretation favourable to tax payer preferable—No equity in tax legislation - Necessary to support Parliaments new and ongoing public projects - Policy behind Income Tax Act—Pay assessed tax now and litigate later—Appeal against tax assessments no basis to stay or stop by injunction the recovery of assessed taxes - Question of harshness of tax legislation within meaning of s41 of the Constitution considered—Question to be considered within tax regime—Abuse of Collector of Taxes powers and extreme personal hardship and oppression could result in stay or injunction of powers to collect assessed taxes.

TAXATION—Proper construction of tax legislation—Interpretation favourable to tax payer preferable—No equity in tax legislation - Necessary to support Parliaments new and ongoing public projects - Policy behind Income tax Act—Pay assessed tax now and litigate later—Appeal against tax assessments no basis to stay or stop by injunction the recovery of assessed taxes - Question of harshness of tax legislation within meaning of s41 of the Constitution considered—Question to be considered within tax regime—Prove of abuse of Collector of Taxes powers and extreme personal hardship and oppression could result in stay or injunction of powers to collect assessed taxes.

2 Papua New Guinea Cases Cited:

The Government of Papua New Guinea and Richard Harold Davis v Stanley Barker [1977] PNGLR 386; Special Reference Pursuant to Constitution s19 by Morobe Provincial Government [2002] PNGLR 333; Golobadana No 35 Ltd v Bank of South Pacific Ltd (2002) N2309; Mt Hagen Airport Hotel Pty Ltd v Gibbes [1976] PNGLR 216; Public Employees Association of Papua New Guinea v Napoleon Biyuwo Liosi and Public Services Commission [1988–89] PNGLR 585; Markscal Ltd v MRDC [1996] PNGLR 419; Gobe Hongu Ltd v The National Executive Council (1999) N1920; NHC v Yama Security Services Pty Ltd [2000] PNGLR 69; Rimbink Pato v Anthony Manjin [1999] PNGLR 6; Mauga Logging Co Pty Ltd v South Pacific Oil Palm Development Pty Ltd (No 1) [1977] PNGLR 80; Kurt Reimann v George Skell (2001) N2093; IIRC v Pirouz Hamidian Rad [2002] PNGLR 315; Norah Mairi v Alkan Tololo (No 2) [1976] PNGLR 125; Misima Mines Ltd v Collector of Customs (2003) N2497; Patterson Lowa v Wapula Akipe [1991] PNGLR 265; [1992] PNGLR 399; Chief Collector of Taxes v TA Field Pty Ltd [1975] PNGLR 144; The Commissioner General of Internal Revenue v Julian Paul Leach; Julian Paul Leach v The Commissioner General of Internal Revenue (1998) N1779; Premdas v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea [1979] PNGLR 329; SCR No 1 of 1984; Re Minimum Penalties Legislation [1984] PNGLR 314; MVIT v Pupune [1993] PNGLR 370; PNGBC v Jeff Tole (2002) SC694; Fly River Provincial Government v Pioneer Health Services Ltd (2003) SC705; Papua Club Inc v Nusaum Holdings Ltd (2005) SC812; Van Der Kreek v Van Der Kreek [1979] PNGLR 185; Boyepe Pere v Ningi [2003] PNGLR 58; Sir Julius Chan v The Ombudsman Commission of Papua New Guinea [1999] PNGLR 240

3 Overseas Cases Cited:

House v. The Queen (1936) 55 CLR 499; Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1921] 1 KB 64; Clyne v DCT 150 CLR 1; Watson v. Commissioner of Taxation (2002) FCA 374; Uysal v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation,(2003) FCA 1156; Edelsten v. Wilcox & Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 83 ALR 99; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Akers (1989) 89 ATC 4725 at 4727; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v. Ho (1996) 131 FLR 188; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v. Saunders [2001] WASC 48; Held v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 19 ATR 1213; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v. Awad [2001] NSWSC 37; Dianne McGrath Fingleton v. The Queen (2005) HCA 34.

___________________________

1. By the Court: Before us are two appeals against a decision of Salika J., in the National Court given on 28 April 2005. The first one is by the Chief Collector of Taxes (CC of T)

i 1 SCA 50 of 2005.

i1 while the second one [SCA 56 of 2005] is by the Bougainville Copper Limited (BCL). The former is the first in time filed and it concerns only part of the decision appealed against. That concerns the learned trial judge’s decision that arbitration was part of the tax regime in Papua New Guinea (PNG). The later is against the whole of the decision of the National Court, including the issue of arbitration. The main focus there is the learned trial Judge’s decision to lift interim restraining orders issued by Gabi J., on 6 January 2005 which prevented the CC of T from enforcing certain tax assessments against BCL. Another area of focus in BCL’s appeal is Salika J.’s refusal to stay an appeal by BCL against certain tax assessments by the CC of T against it pending arbitration

BACKGROUND

2. In order to appreciate the background from which these appeals are before us, it is necessary to set out the relevant chronology of events. On 24 September 2003, the CC of T issued, after an audit, notices of tax assessments against BCL for the tax years 1999, 2000 and 2001. The total amounts assessed was K28, 075,581; which became payable on or before 24 October 2003. Without having paid the taxes assessed against it, BCL on 24th November 2003 objected to all of the assessments. After not receiving payment for the assessed taxes from BCL, the CC of T on 19th February 2004, issued statutory garnishee notices under s.272 of the Income Tax Act 1959 (“ITA”). That prompted BCL the next day, 20th February 2004, to file an Originating Summons and Notice of Motion claiming a number of identical reliefs. The first relief BCL sought was a declaration that, it was not liable to pay taxes for the years 1990 to 2003. Secondly, it sought a declaration that, it was entitled to call for arbitration. Thirdly, it sought an injunction to restraint the CC of T from...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
152 practice notes
151 cases
1 provisions
  • Supreme Court Rules - Commentary by Justice Lay
    • Papua New Guinea
    • Papua New Guinea Legislation
    • 1 Enero 2009
    ...leave of the court in very exceptional circumstances such as want of jurisdiction": Chief Collector of Taxes v Bougainville Copper Ltd (2007) SC853. Adding a Party. An appellant cannot be added outside the 40 days provided by Supreme Court Act s17: SC 886 (2007) Kenn Norae Mondiai & ano......