Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Rochester [1934] HCA 17; (1934) 50 CLR 225 (7 June 1934)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

The Federal Commissioner of Taxation Plaintiff; and Rochester Defendant.

H C of A

7 June 1934

Rich, Starke, Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ.

McDonald, for the defendant, in support of the demurrer.

Coppel, for the Federal Commissioner of Taxation.

The following judgments were delivered:—

Rich J.

In my opinion these goods are neither manufactured nor produced, and I think the demurrer should be allowed and judgment entered for the defendant.

Starke J.

The definition in neither of the Acts extends to the case of fish or potatoes that have simply been cooked.

Dixon J.

I agree. I think that in the interpretation of these very difficult provisions there is no safe guide but the common use of English terms. To attempt some logical analysis of the conceptions of manufacture and of production and to apply the analysis to any process or operation that appears to possess the attributes found to constitute these conceptions, although it would not ordinarily be described by the words "manufacture" or "production," must lead to results which do not represent the true interpretation of the Act. It may be difficult to distinguish one process by which things are constructed, obtained, prepared, or altered in condition from another, but if we follow the method laid down in Adams v. Rau[1] and Irving v. Munro & Sons Ltd.[2] and simply apply the terms used in the Act as they are ordinarily applied in English speech, I think that it is inevitable that this demurrer should be allowed. It seems to me an odd and inappropriate use of terms to describe cooked fish as either produced or manufactured. In the same way, I think the use of oil or grease and condiments in cooking fish cannot be described properly as a "combination of parts or ingredients" producing "an article or substance commercially distinct from those parts or ingredients" within the new definition of "manufacture."

Evatt J.

In view of the decision in Adams v. Rau[3] I agree that in this case there is neither the manufacture nor the production of a commodity.

McTiernan J.

I agree.

Demurrer allowed.

Solicitor for the plaintiff, W. H. Sharwood, Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth.

Solicitor for the defendant, L. McL. White.

[1] [1931] HCA 43; (1931) 46 C.L.R. 572.

[2] [1931] HCA 57; (1931) 46 C.L.R. 279.

[3] [1931] HCA 43; (1931) 46 C.L.R. 572.