Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Zhang v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] NSWCATAD 181 Hearing dates: 24 March 2023, 19 May 2023 (final submissions) Date of orders: 17 July 2023 Decision date: 17 July 2023 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Dunn, Senior Member Decision: The decision under review is confirmed. Catchwords: TAXES AND DUTIES – duty on an agreement for the sale or transfer of dutiable property – cancelled agreement – application for refund under s 50(2) of the Duties Act made out of time – whether s 50(1) of the Duties Act operates to relieve a taxpayer of liability to duty where an Assessment was correct at the time it was made Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Duties Act 1997 (NSW) Taxation Administration Act 1996 (NSW) Cases Cited: Casella v Commissioner of State Taxation (WA) (1996) 32 ATR 426 Commissioner of State Taxation v Extos Pty Ltd (2000) 46 ATR 5 Freeman v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1998) FCA 294 Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] HCA 16 Li v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] NSWCATAD 81 Metricon Qld Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] NSWSC 982 North West Melbourne Recycling Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2017] VSC 647 Salvation Army (NSW) Property Trust v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2018) 96 NSWLR 119 Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31 Singh v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2016] NSWCATAD 9 YWCA Australia v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2020] NSWSC 1798 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Yuyang Zhang (Applicant) Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: C Peadon and J Nixon (Applicant) E Graham (Respondent) Solicitors: Mills Oakley Lawyers (Applicant) Crown Solicitor (Respondent) File Number(s): 2022/00202290 REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction 1. On 11 December 2014 the Applicant entered into a contract to purchase a proposed strata lot (a retail shop yet to be constructed) at Bathurst Street Sydney (Property) from Greenland (Sydney) Bathurst Street Development Pty Limited (Vendor). That contract is referred to in these reasons as the Contract. 2. On 30 June 2016 the Respondent issued a Duties Notice of Assessment (the Assessment) in respect of the Contract in the amount of $189,340.00 (together with an amount of interest because the Applicant had not lodged the Contract for stamping within the time required by the Duties Act 1997 (NSW) (Duties Act)). 3. The Applicant paid the amount of duty as assessed and on 29 November 2016 the Contract was stamped. 4. On 30 January 2019 the Applicant and the Vendor entered into a Deed of Rescission in respect of the Contract which provided: The Vendor and the Purchaser agree that with effect on the date of this deed: (a) The Vendor and the Purchaser rescind the Contract for Sale ab initio; and (b) all rights created by the Contract for Sale are relinquished and all obligations owed under the Contract for Sale are discharged. 1. On the same date a new contract (Second Contract) was entered into for the purchase of the Property by a trust company. 2. On 15 October 2021, the Applicant's solicitor carried out an Electronic Duties Returns Assessment of the Second Contract and a Duties Notice of Assessment was issued with respect to the Second Contract. 3. On the same day, the Applicant's solicitor attempted to upload an application for a refund of the duty paid in respect of the Contract. The eDuties portal rejected the refund application and the Applicant's solicitor was advised by the Respondent on 10 November 2021 that, as the Assessment was issued on 30 June 2016 and the refund application was lodged more than five years after the date of the Assessment, he could not refund the duty paid on the Contract under s 50 of the Duties Act (the Refund Decision). 4. On 14 December 2021 the Applicant lodged a Notice of Objection under s 86 of the Taxation Administration Act 1996 (NSW) (TAA) objecting to: 1. the Assessment; and 2. the Refund Decision. 1. The Notice of Objection was accompanied by a letter of the same date noting that the Objection was lodged outside the statutory period of 60 days from the date of service of the Assessment and requesting the Respondent exercise his discretion pursuant to s 90(1) of the TAA to permit the Objection to be lodged out of time. 2. It is common ground that the Respondent permitted the Objection to be lodged out of time. By letter dated 12 May 2022 the Respondent disallowed the Objection. 3. The Applicant, being dissatisfied with the Respondent's determination of the Objection, now seeks an administrative review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (ADR Act) of the Assessment. That is a decision which is administratively reviewable by virtue of s 96 of the TAA. 4. The Applicant's application originally also sought review by the Tribunal of the Refund Decision however that application was not pressed. 5. It is the Assessment and not the decision on the objection which is the subject of the review: Singh v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2016] NSWCATAD 9 at [10]–[13]. 6. In conducting the review, the Tribunal is required to determine the correct and preferable decision having regard to the material then before it and the applicable law: s 63 of the ADR Act. Relevant Legislation 1. The following provisions of the Duties Act and TAA applied at all relevant times. Duties Act 1. Section 8 of Chapter 2 of the Duties Act provides for the imposition of duty on certain transactions, relevantly as follows: (1) This Chapter charges duty on— (a) a transfer of dutiable property, and (b) the following transactions— (i) an agreement for the sale or transfer of dutiable property, … (2) Such a transfer or transaction is a dutiable transaction for the purposes of this Act. 1. Section 11 of the Duties Act provides that dutiable property includes land in New South Wales. 2. Section 12 provides that liability for duty arises when a transfer of dutiable property occurs and s 9 provides that in respect of an agreement for the sale or transfer of land, the transfer is taken to have occurred when the agreement is entered into. 3. Section 13 provides that duty charged by Chapter 2 is payable by the transferee. Section 16 provides that the transferee must lodge the written agreement effecting the dutiable transaction within 3 months after the liability arises and s 17 provides that a tax default does not occur if duty is paid within three months after the liability to duty arises. 4. Part 5 of Chapter 2 contains a number of special provisions including s 50 which relates to "cancelled agreements" and provides: 50 Cancelled agreements (1) An agreement for the sale or transfer of dutiable property that is cancelled is not liable to duty under this Chapter if the Chief Commissioner is satisfied— (a) that the agreement was not cancelled to give effect to a subsale, or (b) that the purchaser or transferee under the agreement is a promoter of a named company proposed to be incorporated and that the company is the purchaser or transferee of the dutiable property under a subsequent agreement, or (c) that the purchaser or transferee under the agreement and the purchaser or transferee under a subsequent agreement relating to the same dutiable property were related persons when the agreement that is cancelled was entered into. (2) If duty has been paid on an agreement that is not liable to duty under this Chapter because of this section, the Chief Commissioner must reassess and refund the duty if an application for a refund is made within— (a) 5 years of the initial assessment, or (b) 12 months after the agreement is cancelled, whichever is the later. (3) In this section, cancelled means rescinded, annulled or otherwise terminated without completion. TAA 1. The TAA Act applies in respect of "taxation laws" which are defined in s 4 of the TAA to include the Duties Act. 2. Section 7 of the TAA sets out the purpose of the TAA and its relationship with other taxation laws, relevantly, as follows: 7 Purpose of Act and relationship with other taxation laws (1) The purpose of this Act is to make general provision with respect to the administration and enforcement of the other taxation laws. (2) The other taxation laws include provisions with respect to— (a) the imposition of tax and its payment, and (b) exceptions to and exemptions from liability to the tax, and (c) entitlements to refunds. (3) This Act includes general provisions with respect to— (a) assessment and reassessment of tax liability, and (b) obtaining refunds of tax, and (c) imposition of interest and penalty tax, and … (h) objections and reviews, and … 1. Section 9 of the TAA relates to reassessments and provides: 9 Reassessment (1) The Chief Commissioner may make one or more reassessments of a tax liability of a taxpayer. (2) A reassessment of a tax liability is to be made in accordance with the legal interpretations and assessment practices generally applied by the Chief Commissioner in relation to matters of that kind at the time the tax liability arose except to the extent that any departure from those interpretations and practices is required by a change in the law (whether legislative or non-legislative) made after that time. (3) The Chief Commissioner cannot make a reassessment of a tax liability more than 5 years after the initial assessment of the liability, unless— (a) the reassessment is to adjust tax to give effect to a decision on an objection or review as to the initial assessment, or (b) at the time the initial assessment or a reassessment was made, all the facts and circumstances affecting the liability under the relevant taxation law of the person in respect of whom the assessment or reassessment was made were not fully and truly disclosed to the Chief Commissioner and, as a result, the tax liability was assessed at a lower amount than the Chief Commissioner would otherwise have assessed it, or (c) the reassessment is authorised to be made more than 5 years after the initial assessment by another taxation law, or (d) the reassessment is made as a consequence of an application by a taxpayer, being an application made within 5 years after the initial assessment of the liability, and the reassessment reduces the tax liability. (4) The initial assessment of a tax liability remains the initial assessment of the liability for the purposes of this Act even if it is withdrawn under section 13. 1. Part 10 of the TAA deals with objections and reviews and provides, relevantly: 86 Objections (1) A taxpayer who is dissatisfied with— (a) an assessment that is shown in a notice of assessment served on the taxpayer, or (b) any other decision (within the meaning of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997) of the Chief Commissioner under a taxation law, may lodge a written objection with the Chief Commissioner. (2) However, a taxpayer may not lodge such an objection in respect of the following— … (d) a decision not to reassess the taxpayer's tax liability where the taxpayer seeks to lodge the objection more than 60 days after the date of service of the notice of the initial assessment. (3) The provisions of subsection (2) (c) and (d) do not preclude the lodgment of an objection that is sought to be lodged more than 60 days after the date of service of the notice of the initial assessment if the Chief Commissioner permits its lodgment. The provisions of section 90 (2)–(5) apply to any such objection in the same way as they apply to an objection referred to in section 90 (1). … 89 Time for lodging objection (1) An objection must be lodged with the Chief Commissioner not later than 60 days after the date of service of the notice of the assessment or the date on which the decision referred to in section 86 (1) (b) is served on the taxpayer, except as provided by section 90. … 90 Objections lodged out of time (1) The Chief Commissioner may permit a person to lodge an objection after the 60-day period. … 1. As previously mentioned, s 96 of the TA Act provides that a taxpayer may apply to the Tribunal for an administrative review of a decision of the Respondent that has been the subject of an objection. 2. Section 100 of the TAA provides that the Applicant's and Respondent's cases on an application for review are not limited to the grounds of the objection. Section 100(3) provides that the Applicant has the onus of proving the Applicant's case in an application for review. 3. Section 101 of the TAA sets out the powers of the Tribunal in dealing with an application for review and provides that the Tribunal may, amongst other things, confirm or revoke the assessment or other decision to which the application relates, make an assessment or other decision in place of the assessment or decision to which the application relates or remit the matter to the Respondent for determination in accordance with its finding or decision. The Parties' submissions at the hearing 1. The facts set out in paragraphs [1] to [10] are not in dispute. There is also no dispute that when the Contract was executed the Applicant was liable to pay stamp duty under s 8 of the Duties Act in the amount assessed and that the Assessment was valid when it was issued. 2. The dispute between the parties relates to the proper construction of s 50 of the Duties Act. 3. There are two issues for consideration: 1. Whether by reason of the Deed of Rescission, the Contract is a "cancelled agreement" within the meaning of s 50 of the Duties Act and, if so, whether s 50(1) (a), (b) or (c) apply, namely the Contract was not cancelled to give effect to a subsale, or the Applicant was a promoter of a named company proposed to be incorporated and the company is the purchaser of the dutiable property under the Second Contract or the Applicant and the purchaser under the Second Contract were related persons when the Contract was entered into; and 2. If so, whether s 50(1) of the Duties Act operates to relieve the Applicant from liability to duty in respect of the cancelled agreement such that the Applicant could object against the Assessment under s 86 of the TAA on the basis that it is excessive. 1. As to the first issue, the Respondent accepts the Contract is a cancelled agreement for the purposes of s 50(1) of the Duties Act by reason of the Deed of Rescission. However he does not concede that that one or more of subparagraphs (a), (b) or (c) of s 50(1) of the Duties Act also apply. He says that no consideration was given to whether he was satisfied any of those paragraphs apply because he did not need to do so for the purposes of his decision to disallow the Applicant's objection and the Applicant bears the onus of proof. 2. Prior to the hearing, the Applicant had apparently understood that the Respondent had accepted that one or more of those subparagraphs was satisfied. This is clear from the Applicant's written submissions dated 21 March 2023. Accordingly, at the hearing the Applicant did not lead any direct evidence as to those matters. The Applicant did not seek an adjournment. 3. The Applicant submitted that the Tribunal should find that it is satisfied that s 50(1) (a) or (b) of the Duties Act applies in respect of the cancelled agreement. The Applicant relied on the documentary evidence before the Tribunal, the facts asserted in the Applicant's objection and a statement of a lawyer employed by the Applicant's solicitor (which was neither sworn nor affirmed) which states that he was instructed by the Applicant to lodge an application for a refund of the duty paid on the Contract. The Applicant submitted that the Tribunal should be satisfied that there was a proper basis for lodging the refund application, and therefore, that s 50(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Duties Act must be satisfied. 4. As to the second issue, the Applicant submitted: 1. The Contract is a cancelled agreement and (assuming subparagraph (a), (b) or (c) of s 50(1) of the Duties Act apply) was, from the date of the Deed of Rescission, not liable to duty by reason of s 50(1) of the Duties Act on a plain reading of that section; 2. Section 50 of the Duties Act is a beneficial provision which extends the time for a taxpayer to seek a refund of duty until 5 years after the initial assessment or 12 months after the cancellation of the agreement, whichever is the latter; 3. It was open to the Applicant to seek a refund of the duty paid on the Contract using the mechanism provided for by s 50(2) of the Duties Act. However, for the purposes of these proceedings, he does not challenge that the time limit imposed by s 50(2) for a refund application to be made under that section is absolute and that his application was made outside of that time limit; 4. However, it was also open for the Applicant, alternatively (separately or in parallel) to object against the Assessment under Part 10 of the TAA on the ground that the Assessment is excessive by reason of the operation of s 50(1) of the Duties Act. Section 50 of the Duties Act is not a code in this regard. He relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria in North West Melbourne Recycling Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2017] VSC 647 where at [8] Justice Croft stated in relation to the Victorian equivalent of the TAA: Unlike the Commonwealth income tax legislation where the statutory scheme provides only one method of challenging an assessment… the land tax scheme in Victoria has, since 1910, provided for alternative statutory avenues for the recovery of tax and disputing assessments. These alternative schemes are the objection and review process, with its own refund and appropriation provisions, which are now found in Pt 10 of the TAA, and the refund scheme now found in Pt 4 of the TAA… 1. In the normal course, this alternative course (namely lodgment of an objection) would only be open to a taxpayer for a period of 60 days after an assessment because objections must generally be made within 60 days of being served with a notice of an assessment (s89 of the TAA). However, here the Applicant sought and the Respondent granted permission for an objection to be lodged out of time under s 86(3) and/or s 90 of the TAA; 2. There is no basis for importing into the Part 10 of the TAA objection process the time limit imposed on refund applications made separately under s 50(2) of the Duties Act; 3. Having been validly made, the objection should have been upheld. 1. The Respondent's position was as follows: 1. He accepts that under Part 10 of the TAA it was open to the Applicant to object both to the Assessment and to the Refund Decision. He also accepts that he permitted the Applicant's objection to be lodged out of time; 2. However, he submits that s 50 of the Duties Act operates to confine the opportunity for a taxpayer to overcome liability to duty in respect of cancelled contracts to only those circumstances set out in s 50. Section 50(2) of the Duties Act has the effect, he says, that the whole of s 50 relies on an application having been made for a refund within 5 years of the original assessment or 12 months of the cancellation of the agreement whichever is the latter, so that if this has not occurred, as is the case here, s 50(1) does not operate to relieve the taxpayer of liability to duty. He says s 50(1) cannot be read as a stand alone provision; 3. This construction, he submits, is consistent with and supported by s 9 of the TAA which only allows the Respondent to make a reassessment of duty within 5 years; 4. Time limits are imposed to give the Revenue certainty and there is no provision, he says, in the Duties Act or the TAA which provides the Respondent with any discretion to extend the time limit imposed by s 50(2); 5. The Applicant is effectively asking the Tribunal to exercise powers beyond the powers that the Respondent has; and 6. The Assessment was correct at the time it was made and the fact of the contract being rescinded in 2019 could not have been before the decision maker at that time. The only reason why the Applicant would not be liable to duty in respect of the Contract is if s 50 applies, but s 50 must be read as a whole with s 50(2), such that, as the application for a refund was not made within the time specified by that subsection, s 50 can have no application. Further submissions 1. After the hearing the parties were directed to file further written submissions addressing the question as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make a decision as to whether or not the Assessment under review is excessive taking into account a consideration which could not have been taken into account by the Respondent at the time the Assessment was made (jurisdictional issue). 2. The Applicant filed submissions arguing that the answer to that question was "yes" and referred the Tribunal to two authorities: YWCA Australia v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2020] NSWSC 1798 and Salvation Army (NSW) Property Trust v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2018) 96 NSWLR 119 where, in determining whether the relevant taxpayers were "exempt charitable or benevolent bodies" at the time of the relevant assessments under review, the NSW Supreme Court took account of the taxpayers' expenditure in periods after the relevant assessments were made. 3. The Respondent's submissions did not squarely respond to the question raised by the Tribunal. The Respondent submitted that in reviewing the Assessment the Tribunal could take account of facts and circumstances which were not before the Respondent at the time of the Assessment. However, he submitted, that does not involve reassessing a contract that was assessed to duty and subsequently rescinded as not liable to duty other than in accordance with s 50 of the Duties Act. 4. The Applicant in his submissions in reply submitted that the Respondent conceded in his submissions on the jurisdictional issue that the conditions in subparagraphs (a), (b) or (c) of s 50(1) of the Duties Act are satisfied, so that the only issue remaining before the Tribunal was whether "a valid objection to an assessment the [Respondent] concedes is excessive by reason of the operation of s 50(1) should be allowed". 5. The Respondent did not concede in his submissions that the Assessment was excessive. Nor is it clear to me that the Respondent intended to make a concession that the conditions in s 50(1) are satisfied. However, in light of the decision I have come to, nothing ultimately turns on this. Consideration 1. I consider the Assessment should be confirmed for the following reasons. 2. As to the first issue, I do not consider on the materials before me that I can be satisfied that one or more of subparagraphs (a) or (b) or (c) of s 50(1) of the Duties Act apply in respect of the Contract. There were a number of factual assertions made in the Applicant's objection and his submissions which would possibly support such a conclusion however there is simply not sufficient evidence of those matters before me. The mere fact that a lawyer in the employ of the Applicant's solicitor attempted to lodge a refund application does not take the matter anywhere. Indeed, the refund application was out of time and was not, therefore, able to be made. 3. The Applicant has not discharged his onus of proof in respect of the first issue and I would therefore dismiss the application on that basis. 4. However, in case I am wrong in that finding, I proceed to consider the second issue, namely whether, on the assumption that one or more of subparagraphs 50 (1) (a), (b) or (c) of the Duties Act do apply in respect of the cancelled agreement, s 50(1) of the Duties Act operates to render the Assessment excessive. 5. I agree, and the Respondent accepts, that s 50(2) of the Duties Act does not have the effect that it was not open to the Applicant to seek to object against the Assessment. I agree that the objection and review process in Part 10 of the TAA is separate from and additional to the refund application process provided for in s 50(2) of the Duties Act. 6. The Respondent permitted the Applicant to lodge an objection out of time and proceeded to disallow the objection. Having done so, it falls to me to review the Assessment. I must determine what is the correct and preferable decision. 7. In his written submissions the Applicant submits that, having been validly made, the objection should have been allowed. However it clearly does not follow from the mere fact that an objection has been validly lodged that it is a valid objection in the sense that it must be allowed. 8. The Applicant accepts the Assessment was correct at the time it was made. However, he says that, from the date of the Deed of Recission (assuming that one of subparagraphs (a), (b) or (c) of s 50(1) is satisfied), s 50(1) of the Duties Act operates to relieve the Applicant of liability to duty in respect of the Contract, thus rendering the Assessment, albeit correct at the time it was made, excessive. 9. I agree that once the Deed of Recission was entered into (assuming that one of subparagraphs (a), (b) or (c) of s 50(1) is satisfied), s 50(1) did have the effect that the Contract was not, thereafter, liable to duty. If the Assessment had not already issued and the Contract had come to the Respondent for assessment at that time, he would have been required to assess it as not liable to duty. In that scenario, I consider s 50(1) would operate to relieve the taxpayer of liability to duty. There would be no need for an application for a refund to be made under s 50(2), because duty would not have been paid. 10. However, at the time the Deed of Rescission was entered into the Assessment had been issued and the duty had been paid. 11. The Applicant submitted that in reviewing the Assessment the Tribunal should now take into account facts and circumstances occurring after the Assessment was made, namely the Deed of Rescission because, he said, for the Tribunal to ignore the Deed of Recission would deny operation to s 50(1) of the Duties Act. 12. I agree that the Tribunal is not limited to consider the materials which were before the Respondent at the time the Assessment was made and the taxpayer is not required to show that the Respondent had erred on the materials before him: Metricon Qld Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] NSWSC 982 at [26]. The Tribunal is required to determine whether the decision is the correct and preferable decision on the material before it. 13. However, the Tribunal is subject to the same general constraints as the original decision maker and should ordinarily approach its task as though it were performing the relevant function of the original decision maker in accordance with the law as it applied to the decision maker at the time of the original decision: Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] HCA 16 at [14]. 14. As Kiefel J explained in Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31 at [143]–[144]: 143. Where the decision to be made contains no temporal element, evidence of matters occurring after the original decision may be taken into account by the Tribunal in the process of informing itself. Cases which state that the Tribunal is not limited to the evidence before the original decision-maker, or available to that person, are to be understood in this light. It is otherwise where the review to be conducted by the Tribunal is limited to deciding the question by reference to a particular point in time. 144. In Freeman, Davies J identified the importance of the nature of the decision under review, in determining what facts the Tribunal might take into account. A decision had been made to cancel Mrs Freeman's widow's pension. The definition of "widow", in the Act providing for the pension, did not include a widow who was living with a man, as his de facto wife. That circumstance applied to Mrs Freeman at the time of the decision. That was sufficient to disentitle her from receipt of a pension. The statutory scheme was such that a pension, once cancelled on this ground, could only be reinstated on a further claim being made. Subsequent to the cancellation decision Mrs Freeman's circumstances changed, such that she again qualified for the pension. His Honour held the Tribunal to have been correct to limit its consideration to the circumstances existing at the time the decision to cancel was made. The Tribunal was entitled to take into account all the facts placed before it, but the issue was whether the decision it was reviewing, to cancel the pension, was the correct or preferable decision when it was made. It was not whether Mrs Freeman had an entitlement to a widow's pension at the date of the Tribunal's decision. (footnotes omitted) 1. The decision under review in this case, the Assessment, similar to the decision under review in Freeman v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1998) FCA 294 referred to by Her Honour, clearly contains a temporal element. In my view, while I may take into account facts placed before me which were not before the Respondent at the time of the Assessment, the question I must determine is whether the Assessment was the correct and preferable decision at the time it was made. 2. I agree with the Respondent that the cases the Applicant relied upon in its submissions, YWCA and Salvation Army, are not relevant. They concern a different statutory provision and in YWCA the parties agreed that the relevant question, whether the body was an exempt body at the relevant time, could be measured by calculating expenditure in the year in which the exemption was sought and the parties proceeded on that agreed basis. 3. Here the question I must determine is not what was the correct characterisation of an entity. The question I must determine is whether duty was correctly assessed on a transaction evidenced by a contract entered into on a certain date. 4. The question before the Respondent at the time of the Assessment was whether the Contract was at that moment in time liable to duty. That is the same question I must determine. At that time, the Contract was undoubtedly liable to duty. Section 12 of the Duties Act provides that liability for duty arises at the time a transfer occurs and s 9 makes it clear that in respect of an agreement for the sale or transfer of land, the transfer is taken to have occurred at the time the agreement is entered into. The agreement was entered into on 11 December 2014. At the time of the Assessment, that is 30 June 2016, the Deed of Recission had not been entered into and s 50(1) of the Duties Act did not apply. 5. Section 50(1) of the Duties Act does not operate to render an assessment which was correct at the time it was made, incorrect. Nor do I consider that such a construction denies s 50(1) operation. 6. It is clear from the legislation that s 50(2) of the Duties Act has been included to cater for this very situation and to provide for a reassessment and refund mechanism that taxpayers, in the situation of the Applicant, can access in order to obtain a refund of duty paid as a result of an assessment which was validly made at the time but where the contract has later been cancelled. 7. The Applicant submitted that s 50(2) of the Duties Act was inserted to extend the time for a taxpayer to challenge an assessment and seek a refund of duty in respect of a cancelled agreement because otherwise a taxpayer would only have 60 days from the date of the original assessment to challenge it. 8. I disagree. Section 50(2) of the Duties Act is necessary because, without it, unless it was incorrect at the time it was made, the assessment could not be effectively challenged. 9. Section 50(2) is required because, without it, s 50(1) would be denied operation: taxpayers would otherwise have had no means to recover duty already paid under an original assessment where s 50(1) later applies. It is in this sense a beneficial provision. It gives taxpayers an opportunity to recoup duty paid in respect of cancelled contracts which would not have been available to them if they sought a reassessment under s 9 of the TAA or to object to the Assessment. If, after the Deed of Recission was entered into, the Applicant had sought a reassessment under s 9 of the TAA, that reassessment would have been required to be made in accordance with the legal interpretations and assessment practices generally applied by the Respondent at the time the tax liability arose (except to the extent that any departure from those interpretations and practices was required by a change in law made after that time, which is not the case here). If he had sought to object against the Assessment (by reason of the Deed of Recission), his objection would have failed because, again, the Assessment was correct at the time it was made. 10. In his written submissions the Applicant also argues that the Assessment was invalid as the Contract was not a dutiable transaction because it was rescinded and void ab initio and, therefore, did not constitute an agreement for the sale of dutiable property under s 8 of the Duties Act (whether or not s 50(1) of the Duties Act applied). This submission was not made at the hearing by the Applicant. However, it was addressed in the Respondent's submissions on the jurisdictional issue. The Respondent submitted that the Contract did not cease being a dutiable transaction because of the fact that it was rescinded and referred the Tribunal to the decisions of Casella v Commissioner of State Taxation (WA) (1996) 32 ATR 426 and Commissioner of State Taxation v Extos Pty Ltd (2000) 46 ATR 5. The Applicant notes in its submissions in reply that both cases concern assessments in respect of instruments rather than transactions and are not relevant. 11. Nevertheless, in my view, the answer is the same. At the time the Assessment was made it was correct. The Contract had not, at that time, been rescinded. A valid assessment to duty does not become invalid as a result of facts and circumstances occurring after the assessment is made. That this is the case is clear because if the later rescission of the Contract did have the effect that the Assessment was excessive, there would then be no need for s 50(1) of the Duties Act. 12. It was open to the Applicant to seek a reassessment and refund under s 50(2) within the timeframe there provided and had he done so (on the assumption one of subparagraphs (a), (b) or (c) of s 50(1) is satisfied) the Respondent would have been required to reassess and refund the duty the Applicant had paid. 13. The Applicant accepts that the time limits imposed by s 50(2) are strict and this has now been confirmed by the Tribunal in Li v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] NSWCATAD 81 at [21]. The Applicant did not comply with the time limits imposed by that section. 14. It is not a question of importing into Part 10 of the TAA the time limitations set out in s 50(2) of the Duties Act. The Applicant's application for review of the Assessment fails, not because he did not comply with the time limits imposed by s 50(2) of the Duties Act to seek a refund, but because on the basis of the material before the Tribunal the Assessment was correct at the time it was made. 15. North West Melbourne Recycling Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2017] VSC 647 at [8]–[11] does not assist the Applicant. While the Supreme Court of Victoria considered similar provisions in the Land Tax Act 2005 (Vic) and the Taxation Administration Act 1997 (Vic) provided the taxpayer in that case alternative schemes for seeking refunds of land tax, the difference is that in that case the original land tax assessment was, at the time it was made, incorrect. It had been made on the basis of an incorrect land valuation. As such, if an objection had been made to the original assessment, it should have been allowed. Here, the Applicant accepts and I find that the Assessment was correct at the time it was made. 16. Accordingly, it follows that I consider that the Assessment is the correct and preferable decision. Order 1. The decision under review is confirmed. ******* I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar Amendments 24 July 2023 - Coversheet: date of final submissions corrected. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 24 July 2023