Parton v Milk Board (Vic)
| Parton v Milk Board (Vic) | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Parton v Milk Board (Vic) |
| Decided | 21 December 1949 |
| Citation(s) | (1949) 80 CLR 229 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | none |
| Subsequent action(s) | none |
| Case opinions | |
| (3:2) The broad approach to excise in section 90 is to be taken (per Rich, Dixon & Williams JJ; Latham CJ & McTiernan J dissenting) | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Latham CJ, Rich, Dixon, McTiernan and Williams JJ |
Parton v Milk Board (Vic) (1949) 80 CLR 229 is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with the meaning of excise in relation to section 90 of the Australian Constitution.
In this case, the tax was calculated as a fixed amount per gallon of milk, and imposed on retailers, instead of at the production phase; this was held to be invalid as imposing a duty of excise. This heralded in the broad approach to section 92 - where a "tax upon a commodity at any point in the course of distribution before it reaches the consumer produces the same effect as a tax upon its manufacture or production" (per Dixon J). Rich and Williams JJ agreed with Dixon J, stating that a tax at a later stage in the handling of a good is in effect a tax on the production or manufacture of the good.
Latham CJ dissented, using Peterswald v Bartley, and McTiernan J felt that it should be employed in a narrower sense, to make it fit within what he perceived to be the object of the section, which was to promote a "uniform fiscal policy for the Commonwealth".
See also
References
- Winterton, G. et al. Australian federal constitutional law: commentary and materials, 1999. LBC Information Services, Sydney.