Neha Patil (Editor)

Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania

Updated on
Edit
Like
Comment
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Decided
  
1 April 1974

Prior action(s)
  
none

End date
  
April 1, 1974

Citation(s)
  
(1974) 130 CLR 177

Subsequent action(s)
  
none

Ruling court
  
High Court of Australia

Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania

Full case name
  
Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania

Judge(s) sitting
  
Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Menzies, Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ

People also search for
  
Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria

Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania (1974) 130 CLR 177 is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution.

In this case, the Act in question imposed licences for the sale of tobacco, and the fee was calculated as being 4.5 percent of the retail value of tobacco sold in the 12-month period ending 6 months prior to the licence period. Three judges, namely Gibbs, Menzies and Stephen JJ, applied the criterion of liability approach and held that the fee was not an excise and thus not invalid by section 90 (see Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria). Barwick CJ and Mason J, while disapproving of the criterion of liability approach, felt bound to follow the precedent set by Dennis Hotels, since the facts of that cases were quite similar to those in this case.

The Court, with the exception of McTiernan J, excluded consumption taxes from duties of excise, although such taxes are frequently also a tax on the sale of goods.

References

Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania Wikipedia