TMI Blog1957 (3) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whichever was less. There was a proviso to this section and the proviso was that in respect of any profits which were also liable to assessment to excess profits tax under the law in force in the United Kingdom, it was unnecessary to make the deposit. In other words, an assessee who was liable to have his excess profits tax assessed in the united Kingdom had the benefit of the refund provided by section 10(1) without incurring the obligation to make the deposit provided by that section. Now this voluntary deposit contemplated by section 10(1) was made obligatory by clause 2 of the Excess Profits Tax Ordinance of 1943. Then we come to the finance Act of 1946, and section 11, sub-section (11) of the Act provided that any sum being excess pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods are 1st September, 1940, to 31st August, 1941, 1st September, 1941, to 31st August, 1942, 1st September, 1942, to 31st August, 1943, 1st September, 1943, to 31st August, 1944, and 1st September, 1945, to 31st March, 1946, respectively. They were called upon to make the compulsory deposit under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1942, and the Excess Profits Tax Ordinance. To this requisition the company relied on the 24th of November, 1946, in the following words: In reply to the last paragraph, we have to state that the company in question is eventually liable to excess profits tax (in the United Kingdom) and as such it would appear that the compulsory deposit is not payable in accordance with the fourth proviso to section 10(1) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e compulsory deposit only if its profits were liable to excess profits tax in the United Kingdom and it escaped that liability because it represented to the Department that its profits were liable to excess profits tax in the United Kingdom. Now when the question arose under section 11(11) of the Finance Act, 1946, as to how the refund should be brought to tax, the assessee company completely changed its front and took up the attitude that its profits were not liable to excess profits tax in the United Kingdom and therefore the case did not fall under the proviso to section 11(11). It is difficult to understand how the assessee can be permitted to deny the truth of the representation made by it in its letter of the 24th of November, 1946, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing brought to assessment and ultimately to tax. We are prepared to take Mr. Kolah at his word and we are prepared to put that construction on that proviso if it favours his client. But if that is the interpretation which has to be placed upon the proviso to the Finance Act of 1942, then the same interpretation should be put upon the proviso to section 11(11) of the Finance Act of 1946. The language used in the Finance Act of 1942 is liable to assessment ; the language used in the Finance Act of 1946 is assessable to excess profits tax . We see no difference between these two expressions. Both emphasise, not the fact of assessment, but the liability to be assessed. Both contemplate excess profits tax being made in the United Kingdom which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
