1930 (12) TMI 19 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the Board of Review under the Income Tax Assessment Act, 1922-1925.
2. Constitutionality of the tenure of office for members of the Board of Review.
3. Validity of the assessment made under the Income Tax Assessment Act, 1922-1925.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Board of Review:
The primary issue was whether the Board of Review constituted under the Income Tax Assessment Act, 1922-1925, was a Court exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth within the meaning of Section 71 of the Constitution of Australia or merely an administrative tribunal. The judgment clarified that the Board of Review, created by Section 41 of the Act, was not a Court but an administrative tribunal. It emphasized that the Board had the powers and functions of the Commissioner in making assessments, determinations, and decisions under the Act, and its decisions were deemed to be those of the Commissioner. The judgment underscored that the Board's decisions were not final and conclusive, unlike those of a Court, and could be reviewed by the Commissioner, indicating its administrative nature.

2. Constitutionality of the Tenure of Office:
The second issue was whether members of the Board of Review, if considered a Court, could be appointed for a term of years or must be appointed for life, subject to the power of removal contained in Section 72 of the Constitution. The judgment noted that it was unnecessary to decide this issue formally because the Board of Review was deemed an administrative tribunal. However, it expressed that, as presently advised, the Judicial Committee was not prepared to assent to the view that it was competent to appoint justices of the High Court or other Courts created under Section 71 of the Constitution with other than a life tenure.

3. Validity of the Assessment:
The final issue was the validity of the assessment made upon the appellant under the Income Tax Assessment Act, 1922-1925. The appellant argued that the assessment was invalid because it was made under a statute that was unconstitutional due to the nature of the Board of Review. The judgment affirmed the validity of the assessment, stating that the Board of Review was an administrative tribunal and thus the legislation did not transgress the limits laid down by the Constitution. Consequently, the assessment made under the Act was upheld.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court of Australia was affirmed. The Board of Review was determined to be an administrative tribunal, not a Court exercising judicial power, and thus the tenure of its members for a term of years was constitutional. The assessment made under the Income Tax Assessment Act, 1922-1925, was valid. The Judicial Committee advised His Majesty to dismiss the appeal with costs.