Commonwealth v South Australia [1926] HCA 47

; Gons APPL Capital — Dist dal Posten nis Hotels Duplicaiors'v 'Wrage YY dv ee fe oe ee, Se 2 Hab CRP EAR" Ee" ed fo 408 HIGH COURT (1926. Cons Ha Appl Hav Hammond & 'Hammond & Associates v SEAS, y oy IRS iS PAR 80 (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.) THE COMMONWEALTH AND ANOTHER. Prarntirrs ;

AGAINST

THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA AND

ANOTHER .

THE COMMONWEALTH OIL REFINERIES )

LIMITED

AGAINST

THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA AND

ANOTHER .

; Drrenpants.

5 PLANTIFF ;

: Drrenpants.

H.C. or A. Constitutional Law—Validity of statute of State—Violation of Constitution of

1926. Commonwealth—Duties of customs and excise—Freedom of trade, commerce —~ and intercourse—Tax on vendors of motor spirit—Income tax—The Constitution Mexpourne, (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), secs. 90, 92, 106, 107, 109—Tazation (Motor Spirit Oct. 27, 28. Vendors Act) 1925 (S.A.) (No. 1681), secs. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16*—Tazation (Motor p Spirit Vendors) Suspension Act 1925 (S.A.) (No. 1712). SYDNEY, Nov, 26 Held, by Knox C.3., Isaacs, Higgins, Powers, Rich and Starke JJ. (Gavan Duffy J. dissenting), that the Taxation (Motor Spirit Vendors) Act 1925 (S.A.) TsanesHigeins, #8 invalid on the ground that it violates the provision in sec. 90 of the Gavan Duffy,

Ridvani _ * The Taxation (Motor Spirit Vendors)

Starke JJ. Act 1925 (S.A.), which is entitled " An Act to impose a tax upon the income of vendors of motor spirit, and for other purposes," by sec. 2 (1) defined " ven- dor" as meaning "every person who sells and delivers motor' spirit within the State to persons within the State for the first time after the entry of such motor spirit into the State, or, as the

case may be, after the production, refinement, manufacture, or compound: ing of such motor spirit within the State, but does not include any purchaser of such motor spirit who subsequently sells the same." By sec. 4 it is pro- vided that '(2) every vendor