Commissioner of Taxes v Richardson (88 of 2005) [2006] SCSC 33 (7 November 2006)
The defendant failed to file a defence and the plaintiff proved the tax liability with documentary evidence; judgment is entered for the plaintiff for the claimed sum and costs.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] SCSC 33
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Commissioner of Taxes; Defendant: John Richardson (in his capacity as the Senior Partner of Halpern & Wolf)
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Seychelles
- Case Number
- 88 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Ex Parte Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Business Tax, Tax Assessment, Tax Penalties
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Commissioner of Taxes
Plaintiff
John Richardson (in his capacity as the Senior Partner of Halpern & Wolf)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ex Parte Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant owes the claimed sum in business taxes and penalties for the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant failed to file a defence and the plaintiff proved the tax liability with documentary evidence; judgment is entered for the plaintiff for the claimed sum and costs.
Court Disposition
judgment for plaintiff
Orders
- Defendant to pay Rs. 183,349.11 to the plaintiff
- Defendant to pay costs of the action
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES COMMISSIONER OF TAXES PLAINTIFF VERSUS JOHN RICHARDSON (In his capacity as the Senior Partner of Halpern & Wolf) DEFENDANT Civil Side No 88 of 2005 Miss M. Cecile for the Plaintiff Perera J JUDGMENT The plaintiff claims a total sum of Rs.183,349.11 in respect of business taxes due for the assessment years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2004, from the defendant, who performs business of accountants and auditors under the firm name of “Halpern and Woolf”. The defendant who was represented by Counsel was given time to file a defence. But as he defaulted, the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing. Miss Marie Annette Fred of the Taxation Division testified that the defendant submitted business tax returns for the year ended 31st December 1999, 31st December 2000, and 31st December 2001 on the 11th of September, 27th November 2002 and 13th May 2004 respectively. Notices of assessment were sent by the plaintiff on 8th November 2000, 27th November 2002 and 4th June 2004 to the defendant. She further stated that on 19th February 2001, the 1999 assessment was amended to reduce the tax payable, and was served on the defendant, who did not respond. She stated that the outstanding taxes owed by the defendant up to 2004 were as follows- 1999 Assessment Due Date 8/12/2000 Less; credit Amendment Less; payment Add; Late payment penalty Total SR 157,065.60 SR 44,891.40 SR 82,506.62 SR 29,667.58 SR 18,896.00 SR 48,563.58 2000 Assessment Due Date 1/3/2003 Add; Late payment penalty Total SR 54,160.00 SR 11,221.00 SR 65,381.00 2001 Assessment Due Date 5/7/2004 SR 9,591.04 1999 Trades Tax Penalty (Sept. & Dec.) SR 3,058.39 2000 Trade Tax Penalty (Aug.) 2001 Trade Tax Penalty (Mar. & May) SR 1,445.10 SR 4,329.24 2002 G. S. T. Penalty (Feb) SR 875.82 2003 G. S. T. Assessment Due Date 24/3/2004 Add; Late payment penalty Total SR 29,918.05 SR 1,598.00 SR 31,511.05 2003 G. S. T. Penalty (Mar, Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec) SR 3,293.10 2004 G. S. T. Assessment Due Date 24/3/2004 Add; Late Payment Penalty Total Total due & owing SR 14,485.79 SR 815,00 SR 15,300.79 SR 183,349.11 The Court is satisfied that the defendant owes the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 183,349.11 as the total tax liability. Judgment is accordingly entered in favour of the plaintiff is a sum of Rs 183,349.11 together with costs of action. ………………………. A. R. PERERA JUDGE Dated this 8th day of November 2006