Joseph v The Board of Inland Revenue

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Koylass, C.,Burke, M.,Julumsingh, M.
• Judgment Date: 26 November 1982
• Court: Tax Appeal Board (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: I 9, 1113-1116/1979
• Date: 26 November 1982

Tax Appeal Board

Koylass, C.; Burke, M.; Julumsingh, M.

I 9, 1113-1116/1979

Joseph

and

The Board of Inland Revenue

Appearances:

S. Shivarattan for the appellant.

E. John-Charles and I. Ramon for the respondent.

Cases referred to:

• (1) King v. Kinghorn [1908] 12 K.B. 949.

• (2) Bocas v. BIR. (1978–85) 2 T.T.T.C. 189.

• (3) Juman v BIR. (1978–85) 2 T.T.T.C. 343.

• (4) Arnott v. Hayes (1887) 36 Ch. D. 731; 56 L.T Ch. 844; 3 T.L.R. 807.

  Application for order that the respondent be at liberty to inspect and take copies of entries in a bank relating to accounts held by the appellant.

Evidence - Inspection of documents — Whether an order of inspection of documents should be granted where the bank books had material information to assist in the determination of the matter — Finding that the Court had the power to make an order pursuant to section 30 of the Evidence Act.

The respondent applied to Board for an order pursuant to section 30 of the Evidence Act that the respondent be at liberty to inspect and take copies of entries in books of the Bank of Nova Scotia relating to the appellant's accounts, No evidence was adduced in support of the application but counsel for the respondent argued that the documents sought were basic to the appeal and were to be used solely for the determination of the appeal.

Counsel for the appellant argued that the point had been dealt with in a case which was subject to appeal and that an order under section 30 in limited only to cases where the court may legitimately order discovery in civil proceedings.

Held:

An order under section 30 of the Evidence Act is not limited to cases where the court may legitimately order discovery in civil proceedings; in this case the court has the power to grant the order sought and the evidence sought to be adduced appears to be material.

1 On 14th May, 1982, it was ordered, inter alia, that appeals 1 113 to I 116 of 1979 should be consolidated and be tried at the same time as appeal I 9 of 1979. A statement of case in 1 9 of 1979 regarding an appeal for the year of income 1971 had been filed on 30th June, 1981 and a consolidated statement of case in regard to I 113 to I 116 of 1979 for the years of income 1972 to 1975 had been filed on 14th June, 1982.

2 The appeals came up for hearing on 18th October, 1982, when Counsel for the respondent applied to the Court for an order pursuant to section 30 of the Evidence Act that the respondent be at liberty to inspect and take copies of entries in the books of the Bank of Nova Scotia, 49, High Street, San Fernando, for the period 1st January, 1971 to 31st December, 1971, relating to –

• (a) a current account in the name of the appellant;

• (b) a demand loan account in the name of the appellant; and

• (c) a joint account in the names of the appellant and his son, Adolf Joseph.

3 No evidence was adduced in support of the application, but Miss Ramoo, Counsel for the respondent, argued that the documents filed by the respondent in accordance with section 43D(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as “the Ordinance”), disclose that the entries sought to be inspected were basic to the appeal against the assessment for the year of income 1971. She pointed out that in the absence of bank statements for 1971, the respondent had used information from bank statements...