Quesnel v The Board of Inland Revenue

JurisdictionTrinidad & Tobago
JudgeKoylass, C.,Burke, M.,Julumsingh, M.
Judgment Date29 July 1982
CourtTax Appeal Board (Trinidad and Tobago)
Docket NumberE 1 of 1981
Date29 July 1982

Tax Appeal Board

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

E 1 of 1981

The Board of Inland Revenue

M. Daly, S.C. for appellant

E. John-Charles for respondent

Revenue Law - UInterpretation — Income Tax Ordinance, Rule 26(1) — Whether Ordinance limited to an appeal against an assessment to income or corporation tax — Appeal against assessment to estate duty — Whether respondent required to file a statement of case in an appeal vs. assessment to estate duty — Finance Act, 1966, s. 67, Schedule VIII — Nothing in legislation to prevent filing of statement of case — Rule 26(1) of Income Tax Ordinance provides that the Inland Revenue shall file a statement within 2 days after service of notice of appeal upon them and serve a copy on the appellant.


By notice of appeal filed on 21st December, 1981, the appellant appealed against an assessment to estate duty dated 10th August, 1981.


At the hearing on 28th June, 1982, counsel for the appellant informed the Court that the appellant had been endeavouring to obtain from the respondent a statement of case, but the respondent had taken the position that it was not required to file a statement of case in an appeal against assessment to estate duty. In the circumstances, he requested a ruling on the matter by the Court.


Counsel for the respondent contended that there was no requirement for the filing of a statement of case and submitted briefly as follows:–

  • (1) By virtue of amendments made by the Finance Act, 1966, to the Estate and Succession Duties Ordinance, jurisdiction to hear such appeals had been 4rarsferred from the High Court to the Appeal Board.

  • (2) The procedure which governed the exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court, namely, the Estate Duties Appeals Rules, continued to govern the exercise of such jurisdiction by the Appeal Board, subject, however, to any such rule being inconsistent with the Appeal Board Rules, 1967, in which case the latter Rules prevailed.

  • (3) Specifically, where the Appeal Board Rules are silent on any matter, the Estate Duties Appeals Rules should apply.

  • (4) Notwithstanding the omission of the Estate Duties Appeals Rules from the Laws of Trinidad and Tobago (Revised Edition), they continue to have force and validity by virtue of section 14 of the Law Revision Act, which reads as follows:–

    “No written law omitted from the Laws, under the authority of this Act or otherwise, shall be deemed to be without force and validity by reason only of the fact that it is so omitted.”


In reply, counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent was required by rule 26(1) of the Appeal Board Rules to file a statement of case for the following reasons:–

  • (1) The submission by counsel for the respondent in relation to section 14 of the Law Revision Act was irrelevant, as section 40(1) of the Estate and Succession Duties Act, as revised, had clearly provided for appeals to be made to the Appeal Board “within the time and in the manner, and on the conditions directed by Rules of the Appeal Board.” Accordingly, the Estate Duties Appeals Rules had been thereby repealed.

  • (2) The appellant had instituted proceedings, not by petition, but by an appeal as provided by section 40(1) of the Estate and Succession Duties Act. Therefore all the rules in Part II of the Appeal Board Rules applied mutatis mutandis to estate duty appeals.

  • (3) The word “appeal”, as defined in rule 2 of the Appeal Board Rules, “includes any matter other than an application...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT