Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania
| Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania |
| Decided | 1 April 1974 |
| Citation(s) | (1974) 130 CLR 177 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | none |
| Subsequent action(s) | none |
| Case opinions | |
| (5:1) A licensing scheme with a backdating mechanism is not an excise (per Barwick CJ, Menzies, Gibbs, Stephen & Mason JJ; McTiernan J dissenting) | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Menzies, Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ |
Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania (1974) 130 CLR 177 is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution.
In this case, the Act in question imposed licences for the sale of tobacco, and the fee was calculated as being 4.5 percent of the retail value of tobacco sold in the 12-month period ending 6 months prior to the licence period. Three judges, namely Gibbs, Menzies and Stephen JJ, applied the criterion of liability approach and held that the fee was not an excise and thus not invalid by section 90 (see Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria). Barwick CJ and Mason J, while disapproving of the criterion of liability approach, felt bound to follow the precedent set by Dennis Hotels, since the facts of that cases were quite similar to those in this case.
The Court, with the exception of McTiernan J, excluded consumption taxes from duties of excise, although such taxes are frequently also a tax on the sale of goods.
See also
References
- Winterton, G. et al. Australian federal constitutional law: commentary and materials, 1999. LBC Information Services, Sydney.