Anderson's Pty Ltd v Victoria

Last updated

Anderson's Pty Ltd v Victoria
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided 17 December 1964
Citation(s) [1964] HCA 77, (1964) 111  CLR  353
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Windeyer JJ

Anderson's Pty Ltd v Victoria, [1] is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with Section 90 of the Constitution of Australia. In this case, following on from such cases as Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria , [2] Barwick CJ accepted the broad approach to the definition of an excise, but rejected the formalistic criterion of liability approach for determining if the excise falls at the relevant step. He adopted the substance over form approach, or the substantial effects doctrine, in that there are many factors to be considered, for example, the indirectness of the tax, its effect on the cost of goods and its proximity to the production or distribution of the goods.

High Court of Australia supreme court

The High Court of Australia is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the states, and the ability to interpret the Constitution of Australia and thereby shape the development of federalism in Australia.

Section 90 of the Constitution of Australia prohibits the States from imposing customs duties and of excise. The section bars the States from imposing any tax that would be considered to be of a customs or excise nature. While customs duties are easy to determine, the status of excise, as summarised in Ha v New South Wales, is that it consists of "taxes on the production, manufacture, sale or distribution of goods, whether of foreign or domestic origin." This effectively means that States are unable to impose sales taxes.

<i>Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria</i>

Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying customs or excise duties. Although some of the judges used the now-discredited criterion of liability approach, this case remains authority for cases that are factually similar to it.

See also

Australian constitutional law

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

Related Research Articles

Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia deals with the legislative inconsistency between federal and state laws and declares that valid federal laws override inconsistent State laws, to the extent of the inconsistency. Section 109 is analogous to the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution and the Paramountcy doctrine in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence, and the jurisprudence in one jurisdictions is considered persuasive in the others.

Section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to legislate with respect to "foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth". This power has become known as "the corporations power", the extent of which has been the subject of numerous judicial cases.

The reserved powers doctrine was a principle used by the inaugural High Court of Australia in the interpretation of the Constitution of Australia, that emphasised the context of the Constitution, drawing on principles of federalism, what the Court saw as the compact between the newly formed Commonwealth and the former colonies, particularly the compromises that informed the text of the constitution. The doctrine involved a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the specific powers of the Federal Parliament to preserve the powers that were intended to be left to the States. The doctrine was challenged by the new appointments to the Court in 1906 and was ultimately abandoned by the High Court in 1920 in the Engineers' Case, replaced by an approach to interpretation that emphasised the text rather than the context of the Constitution.

<i>Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd</i>

Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd, also known as the Concrete Pipes Case, is a High Court of Australia case that discusses the scope of the corporations power in section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution. This was an important case in Australian constitutional law because it overruled the decision in the earlier case of Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead, which held that the corporations power only extended as far as the regulation of their conduct in relation to their transactions with or affecting the public. Since this case, the Commonwealth has had at least the ability to regulate the trading activities of trading corporations, thus opening the way for an expansion in Commonwealth power.

<i>Redfern v Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd</i>

Redfern v Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd, was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the trade and commerce power in section 51(i) of the Constitution.

<i>Bath v Alston Holdings Pty Ltd</i>

Bath v Alston Holdings Pty Ltd, is a High Court of Australia case that discusses the application of the freedom of interstate trade, as specified in Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia. This case followed the unanimous decision of Cole v Whitfield, regarding the interpretation of section 92 as about free trade as opposed to individual rights.

<i>Peterswald v Bartley</i> legal case heard in the High Court of Australia in 1904

Peterswald v Bartley is an early High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise.

<i>Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic)</i>

Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic), is a High Court of Australia case that considered section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise (taxes). Although the meaning of excise was considered in Peterswald v Bartley, this case significantly broadened its reach.

<i>Parton v Milk Board (Vic)</i>

Parton v Milk Board (Vic), is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with the meaning of excise in relation to section 90 of the Australian Constitution.

<i>Bolton v Madsen</i>

Bolton v Madsen, is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise duty.

<i>Dickensons Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania</i>

Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania, also known as the Tobacco Tax case is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution.

<i>Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria</i>

Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with section 90 of the Australian Constitution.

<i>Ha v New South Wales</i>

Ha v New South Wales is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise.

Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, as far as is still relevant today is:

Section 99 of the Constitution of Australia, is one of several important non-discrimination provisions that govern actions of the Commonwealth and the various States.

References

  1. ↑ Anderson's Pty Ltd v Victoria [1964] HCA 77 , (1964) 111 CLR 353(17 December 1964), High Court.
  2. ↑ Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria [1960] HCA 10 , (1960) 104 CLR 529(26 February 1960), High Court.

George Graham Winterton was an Australian academic specialising in Australian constitutional law. Winterton taught for 28 years at the University of New South Wales before taking up an appointment of Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney in 2004.

 

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.