Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Silverton Tramway Co Ltd

(1953) 88 CLR 559
27 ALJ 580
10 ATD 295

---

(Decision by: Webb J)

Between: Federal Commissioner of Taxation
And: Silverton Tramway Co Ltd

Court:

Judges: Dixon CJ

Webb JTaylor J

Subject References:
Taxation and revenue
Sales tax
Exemption
Goods for use by public transport authority
Trading company conducting public transport serice for private profit

Legislative References:
Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935 - Section 5; First Schedule; Div XI; Item 77

Hearing date: 29 September 1953; 30 September 1953
Judgment date: 25 November 1953

Melbourne

---

Decision by:
Webb J

I think the term "public transport authorities" in Item 77 under Div. XI of the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935-1951 should be given the meaning it bears according to the rules of syntax, and that it means, what counsel for the defendant company submitted, i.e., an authority to provide public transport; so that cases on the meaning of "public authority" are of little, if any, assistance. Division XI is headed "Goods for use by Governments, Representatives of Governments, and Public Bodies"; but s. 3 (2) of the Act provides inter alia that the heading of a division shall not be read as affecting the interpretation of any item in the schedule.

However, although the defendant provides public transport, it does not follow, in my opinion, that it is an "authority". Throughout Australia there are many limited liability companies, such as gas and electricity supply companies, operating as does the defendant solely for the profit of their shareholders. But, like the defendant, they have authority to place their installations on or under streets and other public places, and to make by-laws, with penalties for breach, for the protection of such installations against unauthorized interference, and in return are required to meet the public demands for their commodities or services and to do so at fixed or maximum prices. But as far as I am aware these companies are never referred to or regarded as authorities, whether local or otherwise, no matter what might be the nature or the scale of their operations. They are, however, often called public utilities. As it cannot properly be claimed that government or command is vested in them, or that any public trust is discharged by them, the mere fact that they are authorized by legislation to the extent indicated does not entitle them to be termed authorities, any more than does their creation or constitution by statute. To warrant that designation they must, I think, have authority to act for and on behalf of the public, and not merely have authority to use or encroach upon public property, subject to providing compensation to the public in some form or other, and to take measures, even subordinate legislative measures, in support of such use or encroachment, but always for private profit.

I would answer the question in the negative and enter judgment for the plaintiff commissioner for PD17,214 14s. 2d. and costs.