Commissioner of Income Tax v Scott Towing and Shipping Company

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Mr. Justice A.R.F. Dickson.
• Judgment Date: 10 March 1979
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1979 CA 2
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 10 of 1978
• Date: 10 March 1979

Court of Appeal

Dickson, J.

Appeal No. 10 of 1978

Commissioner of Income Tax

and

Scott Towing and Shipping Company

Mr. D.B. Courtenay for the Respondent

Mr. R. Rajasingham, Q.C., for the Appellant

Income Tax - Tax Legislation — Interpretation

Revenue Law - Income Tax

Statute - Interpretation — Income Tax Ordinance s. 67(1)

Facts: Income Tax Ordinance, s. 67(1) — Commission of Inland Revenue sought to recover arrears of taxes over a period of ten years after taxes became payable — Ordinance did not specify time within which Commissioner may bring proceedings — Whether Commissioner debarred by virtue of s. 12 Recovery of Revenue Ordinance from bringing summary proceedings to recover tax — Whether claim which was in excess of $500 was outside competence of Magistrate's Jurisdiction

Facts: Commissioner of Inland Revenue sought to recover arrears of taxes in excess of $500 over a period of ten years after taxes became payable — Magistrate declined jurisdiction — Whether claim within competence of Magistrate's jurisdiction — Whether Commissioner debarred by virtue of s. 12 Recovery of Revenue Ordinance from bringing summary proceedings to recover tax

Facts: Whether intention of legislature to limit proceedings for recovery of arrears of tax to Magistrate's jurisdiction in sum of $500.00, by virtue of section 67 — Restrictive construction — Avoidance of absurdity

Held: Appeal allowed.

Held: That section 12 is procedural and did not restrict proceedings to a particular court for recovery of arrears of tax in a summary manner — Finding that there was no time limit in legislation on income tax to recover arrears — Appeal allowed — Case remitted for rehearing.

Held: That it was not intention of Parliament to limit procedure for recovery of arrears of tax as to time of recovery or as to quantum to be recovered.

1 Before Mr. Justice A.R.F. Dickson.

2 This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax from a judgment of a magistrate sitting in the Belize Judicial District, wherein the learned magistrate ruled that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the appellant.

3 The magistrate was of the opinion that as the claim was in excess of $500, the matter was outside the competence of a Magistrate's Court. Section 3 of the District Courts (Procedure) Ordinance, Chapter 11 (as amended by Ordinance 8 of 1970) indeed limits the jurisdiction of a Magistrate's Court in a civil action to any amount not in excess of $500. In his judgment the Magistrate went on to say that, “had the claim been within the limit of $500.00 this court would have entertained it provided proceedings were commenced before the expiration of (3) years from the day on which such sum became payable as provided in section 12 of Chapter 42 (The Recovery of Revenue Ordinance)”. It was conceded at the hearing before the magistrate and before this Court that the tax at the relevant time was in arrears for over a period of three years.

4 In summary Mr. Derek Courtenay counsel who appeared for the respondent both before the magistrate and in this court contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax was seeking to recover arrears of taxes over a period of ten years after the taxes became payable, and that since section 67(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance did not specify the time within which the Commissioner can bring proceedings, he was therefore debarred by section 12 of the Recovery of Revenue Ordinance which dealt with the method of recovery taxes by summary proceedings where a specified time is not stated in which to bring such proceedings. In brief, the Solicitor General who appeared for the appellant contended that section 12 of the Recovery of Revenue Ordinance did not apply to proceedings for the recovery of income tax.

5 It is quite clear that there were two issues before the magistrate. The first was whether the matter was within his competence. The second was whether the proceedings could be brought at that time after a period of three years had elapsed.

6 Section 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance, Chapter 38, provides:

“All taxes, penalties, costs or other amounts payable under this Ordinance, or under Rules made thereunder, are debts due to the Crown and recoverable as such in any court of competent jurisdiction or in any other manner provided by this Ordinance.”

7 It is appropriate at this stage to refer to section 6 of Chapter 38. Subsection (1) reads:

“The Chief Collector shall, from tire to time, issue to any person whom he may employ in the several districts as bailiffs for this purpose (hereinafter referred to as “bailiffs”) warrants directing and authorising them in manner hereinafter provided to make a levy upon the goods of all defaulters for the payment of taxes and fine, the-con remaining unpaid for more than sixty days from the issue of the notice of assessment.”

8 That section clearly gives the Chief Collector power to issue warrants against goods for the recovery of...