Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Wong Chee Wai [1992] FJHC 93; HBC732.1988 (25 July 1992)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 732 OF 1988

BETWEEN:

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
PLAINTIFF

AND:

WONG CHEE WAI
DEFENDANT

Mr. R. Hayhow for the Plaintiff
Mr. H. M. Patel for the Defendant

RULING

The Commissioner of Inland Revenue, as Plaintiff has issued writ against the Defendant to recover arrears of Income Tax and Late Payment Penalty amounting to $15,652.61 for the income years 1977, 1978 & 1981-1986.

The Defendant in his Statement of Defence states that the figures mentioned in the Statements of Claim are incorrect and also proposes an enquiry to be held by an Independent Accountant to verify the true position of the accounts. The Defendant in the Statement of Defence basically challenges the whole computation of the assessment of the Income Tax.

The Plaintiff has taken out summons supported by affidavit seeking that the Defence be struck out under Sections 62(2) and 62(8) of the Income Tax Act Cap. 201 combined with the High Court Rules Order 18 rule 18.

An opportunity was afforded to the counsel for the Defendant to file an affidavit in reply which was filed on 1/6/90.

It is clearly laid down in the decisions of Olive Ethel v. C.I.R C/A 7 (1953) and Ragg v. Her Majesty the Queen that a Defendant is debarred from challenging the merits of the assessment made by the C.I.R if he has not lodged within 60 days given to him to do so under Section 62(2) of the Income Tax Act Cap. 201. This court cannot sit as a Tribunal going through the accounts as a Tax Court.

The Income Tax Act has set apart a different department invested with the powers of taxing, collecting and recovering revenue by way of taxes manned by specially qualified tax assessors. There is provision for objections to be lodged by persons aggrieved by the tax imposed.

The words in Section 62(2) are unmistakable and unequivocal calling on all objectors to lodge their objections within 60 days of the receipt of the notice of assessment. The forum provided by them for them for the purpose and the extra judicial climate must be availed of before seeking the assistance of courts in this regard.

In the result I have no alternative but to strike out the Defence. I enter Judgment for the Plaintiff in a sum of $15,652.61 with costs taxed if not agreed.

L.M. JAYARATNE
JUDGE

25/07/1992