Montano v Board of Inland Revenue

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Koylass, C.,Burke, M.,Julumsingh, M.
• Judgment Date: 09 November 1983
• Court: Tax Appeal Board (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: I 37 of 1982
• Date: 09 November 1983

Tax Appeal Board

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

I 37 of 1982

Montano

and

Board of Inland Revenue

Appearances:

Clive Phelps for appellant

Mrs. Indra Ramoo-Haynes for respondent

Revenue Law - Application for an extension of time for filing a statement of case and serving a copy thereof upon the appellant — Application for costs — Whether the respondent was guilty of unreasonable delay in applying for the extension of time — Court found that there was no objection to the respondent's application — Application for extension of time granted — Ordered that the statement of case be filed and a copy thereof served upon the appellant within three days — Delay in applying for an extension of time to file the statement of case was unreasonable — Ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs on application.

JUDGEMENT of THE COURT:

1 On 6th October, 1983, the respondent filed an application for an extension of time for filing the statement of case and serving a copy thereof upon the appellant.

2 At the hearing of the application on 18th October, 1983, Mrs. Ramoo-Haynes informed the Court that the statement of case had not been filed earlier as there had been negotiations between the parties to bring about a settlement. Unfortunately, however, a settlement had not been reached and out of an abundance of caution she had decided to seek an extension of time to file the statement of case. The respondent, she stated, had hoped that if an agreement had been reached the filing of the statement of case would have been unnecessary.

3 Mr. Phelps stated that he had been instructed that there had been one attempt at settlement on 14th October, 1982. He did not object to the application, but he asked that costs be granted to the appellant under rule 18 of the Appeal Board Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), on the ground that there had been unreasonable delay on the part of the respondent in making the application. He pointed out that under rule 26 of the Rules; it was incumbent on the respondent to file the statement of case within twenty-one days after service upon it of the notice of appeal. He also drew attention to the fact that the notice of appeal had been filed on 13th January, 1982.

4 In reply, Mrs. Ramoo-Haynes stated that the parties had in fact met once only, but that there had been correspondence and telephonic discussions between them. Though conceding that six months had elapsed since the cessation of negotiations aimed at settlement, she submitted that there had been no unreasonable delay. She also contended that rule 18 was concerned with the award of costs on the hearing of an appeal and not an application, and hence, the question of costs did not arise.

5 Mr. Phelps submitted that any ancillary step towards the hearing of a substantive matter was a step in the proceedings and that, accordingly, rule 18 was applicable to the application.

6 In view of the fact that there was no objection to the respondent's application, we grant the application and order that the statement of case be filed and a...