James v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 654

James v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 654

The s 72 notice to Rabobank was bad on its face because it misapplied the custody or control limitation applicable to production of instruments or records under s 72(1)(c) to requests for information under s 72(1)(a), and the confusion between information and documents was so ingrained that the defective portions could not be severed. Some additional aspects of that notice, including the request concerning any other entity for which Mr James had signed a loan agreement, ambiguity about copies, and requests identifying Rabobank officers, went beyond power. However, the notices to Messrs Adams, Suriyachan and Johnson required only attendance and evidence under s 72(1)(b) and did not suffer...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceeding Challenging Decisions to Issue Notices Under the Taxation Administration Act 1996, S 72 / Principal Judgment on Validity of S 72 Notices; Matter Stood Over for Parties to Be Heard on Relief
Outcome
The Rabobank s 72 notice was found bad on its face, but the notices were not issued in bad faith; Mr James was entitled to no relief concerning the notices served on Messrs Adams, Suriyachan and Johnson, and the matter was stood over for submissions on relief.
Legal Topics
['payroll Tax' 'taxation Administration Act 1996, S 72 Notices' 'validity of Notices to Provide Information, Produce Documents and Attend to Give Evidence' 'improper Purpose and Bad Faith' 'statutory Powers of Investigation']
['taxation' 'administrative Law'] ['payroll Tax' 'taxation Administration Act 1996, S 72 Notices' 'validity of Notices to Provide Information, Produce Documents and Attend to Give Evidence' 'improper Purpose and Bad Faith' 'statutory Powers of Investigation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Division Proceeding Challenging Decisions to Issue Notices Under the Taxation Administration Act 1996, S 72 / Principal Judgment on Validity of S 72 Notices; Matter Stood Over for Parties to Be Heard on Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the s 72 notice issued to Rabobank was bad on its face because it confused requests for information under s 72(1)(a) with production of instruments or records under s 72(1)(c).' 'Whether the s 72 notices to Rabobank, Mr Adams, Mr Suriyachan and Mr Johnson were issued for an improper purpose or in bad faith.' 'Whether the Rabobank notice was excessive, oppressive, ambiguous, unreasonable, illogical or disproportionate.' "Whether a s 72 notice must state on its face the Chief Commissioner's purpose in issuing it."]

Ratio Decidendi

The s 72 notice to Rabobank was bad on its face because it misapplied the custody or control limitation applicable to production of instruments or records under s 72(1)(c) to requests for information under s 72(1)(a), and the confusion between information and documents was so ingrained that the defective portions could not be severed. Some additional aspects of that notice, including the request concerning any other entity for which Mr James had signed a loan agreement, ambiguity about copies, and requests identifying Rabobank officers, went beyond power. However, the notices to Messrs Adams, Suriyachan and Johnson required only attendance and evidence under s 72(1)(b) and did not suffer...

Court Disposition

The Rabobank s 72 notice was found bad on its face, but the notices were not issued in bad faith; Mr James was entitled to no relief concerning the notices served on Messrs Adams, Suriyachan and Johnson, and the matter was stood over for submissions on relief.

Orders

  • ['Reasons published.' 'Parties to be heard as to the course of action and the relief, if any, to be granted.']