Singh v The Board of Inland Revenue

JurisdictionTrinidad & Tobago
JudgeKoylass, C.,Burke, M.,Julumsingh, M.
Judgment Date23 July 1980
CourtTax Appeal Board (Trinidad and Tobago)
Docket NumberI 57-60/1979
Date23 July 1980

Tax Appeal Board

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

I 57-60/1979

The Board of Inland Revenue

S. Shivarattan for the appellant.

B. Roopnarine for the respondent.

Cases referred to:

  • (1) Roytrin Nominees Ltd. v. The Board of Inland Revenue (1967–77) 1 T.T.T.C. 458

  • (2) Hood Barrs v. C.I.R. (No. 2) 39 T.C. 209; [1960] T.R. 113; 39 A.T.C. 87

Application for an order of consolidation of four appeals.

Civil Practice and Procedure - Statement of Claim — Consolidation — Appeal against certain amounts charged as income tax and unemployment levy — Whether the appeals should be consolidated where the method adopted for raising the assessments and calculating the income of the tax payers were the same; and there was only one notice of objection in respect of all the assessments — Finding that the appeals should be consolidated — Section 43D(6) of the Tax Board Ordinance — Rule 26(1) of Appeal Board Rules — Order 4, rule 10 of the English Rules of the Supreme Court

The appellant filed four notices of appeal against certain amounts charged and income tax and unemployment levy in respect of the years, 1972-1975. The grounds in all the appeals were substantially the same. The respondent applied for an order of consolidation of the appeals under rule 11 of the Appeal Board Rules. The respondent had not yet sent to the Board the documents relevant to its decision appealed from and the statement of case.

The appellant objected to the consolidation contending that it was necessary for the respondent to file the documents and statement of case for each appeal before the Board could exercise its discretion in respect of the application. The appellant also opposed consolidation on the ground that each year's assessment was a separate issue to be contested separately.

  • (i) an appeal is instituted by the filing of a notice of appeal and serving a copy on the Board and an appeal becomes pending at the stage that these provisions are complied with and consolidation can be ordered where two or more appeals are pending;

  • (ii) the court or Board can consolidate pending appeals for reasons where it is desirable to make order; in this case, consolidation was appropriate as the investigation to the assessments were treated as a single matter; the method applied was the same; the appellant has forwarded one objection for all the assessments and the grounds were applicable to all and the respondent had sent one notice informing the appellant of its refusal to amend the assessments.

Application granted, four appeals consolidated.


The respondent is applying under rule 11 of the Appeal Board Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) for an order of consolidation of four anneals instituted by the appellant. This rule reads as follows:–


Where two or more appeals are pending, then if it appears to the Court–

  • (a) that some common question of law or of fact arises in both or all of them; or

  • (b) that the rights to relief claimed therein are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or

  • (c) that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order under this rule, the Court may, on the application of any party, order those appeals to be consolidated on such terms as it thinks just, or may order them to be tried at the same time, or one immediately after another, or may order any of them to be stayed until after the determination of any other of them.


The notices of appeal were all filed on 24th July, 1979 and were against certain amounts charged as income tax and unemployment levy in respect of the years of income 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975.


In these four notices the statement of allegations of fact reads as follows:–


The assessments are erroneous, arbitrary and incorrect.


In respect of the year of income 1972 the reasons to be advanced in support of the appeal are stated in the notice of appeal as follows:–

  • (1) The appellant did not understate his income by $28,349.00 or any other amount.

  • (2) The penalty of $5,645.15 was wrongly imposed and (sic) the appellant.


The reasons to be advanced in support of the other appeals, apart from the fact that the amounts specified in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of the notices of appeal vary, are substantially the same.


Copies of all documents required to be filed under section 43D(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as “the Ordinance”) were forwarded for filing but separate documents were not filed in each appeal. Statements of case were not filed and served as provided by rule 26(1) of the Rules.


Section 43D(6) provides as follows:–

Immediately after receiving the notice of appeal the Board of Inland Revenue or other respondent shall forward to the Appeal Board copies of all documents relevant to the decision appealed from.


Rule 26(1) provides as follows:–

  • 26. (1) In addition to the documents referred to in section 43D(6) of the Ordinance, the Inland Revenue shall, within twenty-one days after the service upon them of a notice of appeal –

    • (a) file in the Registry a statement of case setting out –

      • (i) the assessment, directive or other decision of the Inland Revenue appealed from;

      • (ii) the material facts upon every point specified in...

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