Majority
stances, be lightly interfered with. My personal opinion is, as indicated above, that it was a proper finding on the evi- VAN dence before the court. I am therefore of opinion that Carter alone is responsible to the plaintiff, and that the CAMP appeal should be dismissed with costs. However, as I am alone in this opinion, I concur in disposing of the case as proposed by the Chief Justice.
Smith J.
Judgment of the Court
ANGLIN, C.J.C.-The bank appeals from the judgment of the Exchequer Court, delivered on the 17th of May last, and reported in [1929] Ex. C. R. at p. 155. The material facts are there fully stated in the terms of the special case submitted for the consideration of the court.
While the special case purports to submit two questions, viz.,
(1) Whether on the facts as stated and admitted herein the Defendant is liable to pay His Majesty the King a consumption or sales tax on or in respect of the stationery referred to in paragraph 3 hereof for the period aforesaid.
(2) Whether the Defendant is liable for the licence fee mentioned in paragraph 5 hereof.
in reality, there is only one question to be determined, viz., whether or not the appellant bank is a manufacturer or producer of the stationery supplies, furnished by it to its head office and branches, within the meaning of that term as used in the Special War Revenue Act, because it is admitted that if the appellant bank is such a manufacturer or producer it is liable for consumption or sales tax, and paragraph 9 of the special case provides as follows:
9. If this Honourable Court shall hold that the Defendant is liable to pay His Majesty the King a consumption or sales tax as aforesaid, it is admitted that the Plaintiff shall have:
(1) Judgment for consumption or sales tax in the sum of $10,205.72, in respect of the said stationery, referred to in paragraph 3 hereof for the period aforesaid.
.
(2) Judgment for $10, licence fee mentioned in paragraph 4 hereof.
(3) Judgment for interest at the rate of five per centum (5%) per annum from the dates when the taxes became due and owing to the first day of June, 1927, and thereafter, at the rate of two-thirds of one per centum (1%) per month, as provided by Section 106, subsection 3 of the
Special War Revenue Act.
The Exchequer Court would appear to have dealt with the case as governed by ss. 86 (a) and 87 (d) of the R.S.C.
1927, c. 179. But that statute came into force only on the
1st of February, 1928, and the claim is for taxes on " sales "
(1) (1880) 7 Rettie, 986, at p. 996.
S.C.R.]
between the 1st of January, 1924, and the 30th of April, 1928. It is, therefore, obvious that, except for transactions sTA during the months of February, March and April, 1928, the liability must be determined by reference to the earlier law. That law is to be found in s. 6 of c. 70 of the Statutes of 13-14 Geo. V (1923), amending the Special War Revenue Act of 1915.
Under s. 19BBB (1), as there enacted, a consumption or sales tax of 6 per cent. is imposed on " the sale price of all goods produced or manufactured in Canada * * * payable by the producer or manufacturer at the time of the sale thereof by him."
"Sale price" is defined to mean "the price before any amount payable in respect of the consumption or sales tax is added thereto."
Subs. 6 of s. 19BBB (as enacted by 13-14 Geo. V, c. 70, s. 6) provides for the taking out of an annual licence by manufacturers or producers. Subs. 13 reads:
Under the legislation, as it then stood, it was determined in Minister of Customs and Excise v. Dominion Press Limited (1), that a job printer is a "producer" within the meaning of the statute.
By amendment of 1926-27, 17 Geo. V., c. 36, s. 4, it was enacted that, for the purposes of s. 19BBB,
This section has been carried into the R.S.C. (1927) as clause (f) of s. 85.
The effect of these several provisions is that a construction of the clauses of ss. 85, 86 and 87 of the Special War Revenue Act, c. 179, R.S.C. 1927, suffices to determine the question at issue, because if the appellant bank is " a manufacturer or producer in Canada," within the meaning of those earlier provisions, it must also be regarded as such a manufacturer or producer within the legislation of 1927. Having regard to the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the bank is liable as claimed and that the appeal therefore fails.
We agree with the learned President of the Exchequer Court that as a printer, lithographer or engraver, which produced, for its own use and not for sale, the goods in question, viz., stationery supplies for its head office and branches, the bank was a producer within the meaning of that term, as used in clause (a) of s. 86 of the Special War Revenue Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 179, and that the goods in question were produced in Canada by it within the meaning of that clause.
We cannot find anything in the statute to support the view put forward by counsel for the appellant that its application is confined to a manufacturer or producer whose business is manufacturing or producing for sale. That construction of the Act would involve the exclusion from our consideration of clause (d) of s. 87, which, in our opinion, was introduced to remove any doubt that the statute was intended to apply to a case such as that at bar.
For these reasons we dismiss the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs.
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Unresolved citations
- Section 106
- ss. 86
- s. 6
- s. 4
- s. 85
- ss. 85
- 86
- 87 of the Special War Revenue Act
- s. 86 of the Special War Revenue Act
- s. 87