Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Action No. HBT 05 of 2019
BETWEEN
BAKERFIELD COMPANY LIMITED of Pathik Cres, Namadi Heights, Suva.
APPLICANT
AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FIJI REVENUE AND CUSTOMS SERVICE,
Revenue and Customs Services Complex, Corner of
Queen Elizabeth Drive and Ratu Sukuna Road,
Nasese, Suva.
RESPONDENT
Counsel : Mr. S. Parshotham for the Applicant
Ms. R. Malani for the Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20th January, 2020
Date of Judgment : 21st February, 2020
JUDGMENT
[1] The applicant filed this application for review in the Tax Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:
Transfer of the land comprised in Certificate of Title No. 9397 and the land comprised in Crown Grant No. 1523, dated 20 June 2018 from Yatu Lau Company Limited to the Applicant for the price of $2,000,000,00 where stamp duty of $60,000.00 was assessed and which was paid by the Applicant to the Respondent
[2] This application was originally filed in the Fiji Tax Tribunal and on an application made by the applicant the learned Tribunal, for the reasons stated in its decision dated 26ht June 2019, transferred the matter to the High Court.
[3] The grounds relied on by the applicant in this matter, in support of its application are as follows:
[4] In deciding that the applicant is liable to pay stamp duty the respondent has relied on the provisions of section 13(1) of the Small and Micro Enterprises Development Act 2002 which provides;
A small or micro enterprise is eligible for assistance, incentives, promotion or access to training services under this Act if it meets the following requirements—
[5] Small and Micro Enterprises Development Act 2002 does not make provisions for the payment of stamp duties. The purpose of enacting this Act is to establish a National Centre for Small and Micro Enterprises Development, to develop, promote and support Small and micro Enterprises and for related matters.
[6] What section 13(1) of the Small and Micro Enterprises Development Act 2002 says is that a small or micro enterprise will not be eligible to assistance, promotions etc., provided by the Small and Micro Enterprises Development Act 2002 unless such an enterprise satisfies the requirements contained in subsections 13(1)(a) to 13(1)(e) of the Small and Micro Enterprises Development Act 2002. It is the Stamp Duties Act 1920 that provides for payment, waiver or refund of stamp duties.
[7] Therefore, the respondent has erred in relying on the provisions of sections 13(1)(d) and (e) of the Small and Micro Enterprises Development Act 2002 in refusing the application of the applicant to waive off the stamp duty.
[8] The law governing the payment of Stamp Duties are found in the Stamp Duties Act as amended. The provisions relevant to the matter before this court are found in Part 2 paragraph 29 of the Stamp Duties (Budget Amendment) Act 2015 which provides;
Any small and micro enterprise with an annual gross turnover not exceeding $500,000 is exempted from paying any stamp duty under this Act provided that they declare by way of a statutory declaration that they have a gross turnover not exceeding $500,000.
[9] The only requirement the applicant is required to be satisfied to become eligible for the exemption from stamp duty is that its annual gross turnover does not exceed $500,000.00. The applicant has made a statutory declaration to that effect and in the decision of the respondent there is nothing to say that the statutory declaration was incorrect.
[10] For the reasons aforesaid the court makes the following orders.
ORDERS
Lyone Seneviratne
JUDGE
21st February, 2020
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2020/127.html