Peterswald v Bartley
| Peterswald v Bartley | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Peterswald v Bartley |
| Decided | 31 August 1904 |
| Citation(s) | (1904) 1 CLR 497 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | none |
| Subsequent action(s) | none |
| Case opinions | |
| (3:0) The Court considered the meaning of excise in relation to section 90 (per Griffith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ) | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ |
Peterswald v Bartley (1904) 1 CLR 497 is an early High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise.
Per Griffith CJ, an excise is a customs duty imposed on goods either in relation to quantity or value when produced or manufactured and not in the sense of a direct or personal tax. His Honour outlined four elements:
- The goods must be locally produced within the State.
- The tax must be imposed at the point of production or manufacture.
- The tax must be imposed in proportion to the quantity or value of the goods in question.
- It must be an indirect tax that gets passed on to the consumer through a higher price of goods.
His Honour's requirement that the tax be imposed at the point of production or manufacture forms what is known as the narrow approach to section 90. This is no longer the case: Ha v New South Wales.
See also
References
- Winterton, G. et al. Australian federal constitutional law: commentary and materials, 1999. LBC Information Services, Sydney.