FISH AND CHIPS

Evening Star, Issue 21742, 9 June 1934, Page 19

FISH AND CHIPS

QUESTION OF MANUFACTURE CASE FOR THE HIGH COURT. If there are any judges of the High Court of Australia who have no knowledge of fish and chips as food for consumption, this democratic combination of two_ well-known articles of diet will soon give them food for thought. Retailers of fish and chips in New South Wales have refused to pay sales tax because they say- that the fish and chips are not produced by a process of inaiiu-. facture within the meaning of the Sales Tax Acts. To test this view the Federal Commissioner of Taxation has brought an action against the owners of an oyster and fish saloon, claiming £2G9 for sales tax.

When the claim was mentioned in the High Court in Melbourne recently it was stated that between £4,000 and £5,000 was outstanding in sales tax on fish and chips in New South Wales. Describing what he considers to be the process of manufacturing fish and chips, the commissioner says, in his claim: “ As part of their business, the defendants purchase fresh fish, clean them, remove their heads and cut the said fish into small pieces for the pur-

pose of frying. When frying the said small pieces, they are first placed in’ - a mixture of flour and water and then placed into hot oil or dripping. As another part of their business, the defendants purchase potatoes, which they peel and cut into small pieces, and then place them in fat and boil until they are cooked.” This preparation, says the commissioner, is a process of manufacture. The defendants deny this, and say that they arc not manufacturers within the meaning of the new Act. The claim came before tho High Court on an application by the commissioner to have the action transferred to Melbourne for hearing. The application was granted on condition that the commissioner pay any additional cost incurred to the defendants hy the transfer.