FISH AND CHIPS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 29 May 1934, Page 7

FISH AND CHIPS

QUESTION GF MANUFACTURE CASE FOR THE HIGH COURT If there are any .Judges of the High Court of Australia who have no knowledge of fish 1 and chips as food for con-, sumption, 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 manufacture within tho meaning of, the Sales Tax Acts. To test this view the Federal Conmussioncl’ of Taxation has brought an action against tho owners of an oyster and fish .saloon, claiming £269.f0r sales-tax. When the claim was mentioned in tho High, Court in, Melbourne recently it Wasstated tlujt between £4OQO and £S(X)O was outstanding in safes-tax on fish and chips in New Sotitli Wales. Describing what ho 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 tho said fish into small- pieces for tho purpose of frying. When frying tho said small - pieeijk, 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 conked.” This preparation,. says’ the commissioner, is, a process of/manufacture. The. defendants deny- this,-j and say that they are not manufacturers within.the meaning. of the Act. ■ ,'A The claim. Came before the High,Court on an application by the • 'commissioner lo have the action transferred, to-Mel-bhurno, for hearing. , The application was on condition-that, the-eoni-misstoper paid any additibnaj cost- in--1 currcd to the defendants by -the transfer.. . , , , \ • -i [ ,