HUGHES,
J.:—This
is
an
appeal
from
a
judgment
of
Mr.
Justice
Angers
of
the
Exchequer
Court
of
Canada
dismissing
an
action
brought
by
the
Attorney-General
of
Canada
to
recover
the
sum
of
$2,611.58,
which
it
was
claimed
was
owing
by
the
respondent
in
respect
of
sales
of
playing
cards
made
from
December,
1931,
to
July
31,
1932.
During
the
period
in
question
each
pack
of
cards
manufactured
was
subject
to
an
excise
tax
imposed
by
Part
XII
of
the
Special
War
Revenue
Act,
R.S.C.,
1927,
¢.
179,
sec.
82,
of
which
reads
as
follows
:—
*
"
82.
There
shall
be
imposed,
levied
and
collected,
an
excise
tax
on
playing
cards
for
every
fifty-four
cards
or
fraction
of
fifty-four
in
each
package,
of
ten
cents
per
pack
"‘2.
The
excise
taxes
imposed
by
the
preceding
subsection
shall
be
payable
at
the
time
(a)
of
importation
or
removal
from
warehouse
for
consumption
in
addition
to
the
duties
of
customs;
or
"‘(b)
of
sale
by
the
Canadian
manufacturer.
Regulations
1
and
2
pertaining
to
Part
XII
are
as
follows
:—
"‘1.
The
tax
of
ten
cents
per
pack
shall
be
payable
by
means
of
excise
tax
stamps
issued
by
the
department
of
National
Revenue.
"2.
Excise
tax
stamps
on
playing
cards
manufactured
in
Canada
shall
be
affixed
to
the
individual
packs
and
be
cancelled,
before
the
playing
cards
are
removed
from
the
premises
of
the
manufacturer.
‘
‘
By
sec.
86
(1)
of
the
Act
the
respondent
was
liable
to
pay
a
consumption
or
sales
tax
of
four
per
cent
on
the
sale
price
of
all
goods
(a)
produced
or
manufactured
in
Canada
payable
by
the
producer
or
manufacturer
at
the
time
of
the
delivery
of
such
goods
to
the
purchaser
thereof.
On
April
7th,
1932,
a
new
subsection
was
substituted
whereby
the
tax
became
six
per
cent.
It
is
conceded
that
the
respondent
paid
sales
tax
during
the
period
in
question
on
its
sales
exclusive
of
the
excise
taxes
imposed
by
virtue
of
sec.
82
of
the
Act.
The
appellant
contends
that
the
sales
tax
should
have
been
computed
on
the
sale
price
including
the
excise
taxes.
Two
copies
of
invoices
of
the
defendant
were
produced.
Invoice
exhibit
1
mentioned
the
excise
tax
separately
from
the
remainder
of
the
price,
and
the
sales
tax
was
computed
on
the
total.
Invoice
exhibit
2
indicated
the
price,
including
the
excise
tax,
in
a
lump
sum.
The
respondent
had
charged
its
customers
sales
taxes
on
the
prices
including
excise
taxes,
but
explained
that
this
was
only
as
a
protection
in
ease
the
contention
of
the
Crown
were
correct.
It
is
agreed
that
the
amount
in
question
is
$2,611.58.
Sec.
85,
subsec.
(a)
of
the
Special
War
Revenue
Act
defines
the
expression
‘‘sale
price
‘
‘
as
follows
:—
‘*(a)
‘sale
price’,
for
the
purpose
of
calculating
the
amount
of
the
consumption
or
sales
tax,
shall
mean
the
price
before
any
amount
payable
in
respect
of
the
consumption
or
sales
tax
is
added
thereto,
and
shall
include
the
amount
of
other
excise
duties
when
the
goods
are
sold
in
bond;
in
the
case
of
imported
goods
the
sale
price
shall
be
deemed
to
be
the
duty
paid
value
thereof.’’
Subsec.
(b)
of
sec.
85
defines
the
words
"‘duty
paid
value”?
as
follows:
"(b)
‘duty
paid
value’
shall
mean
the
value
of
the
article
as
it
would
be
determined
for
the
purpose
of
calculating
an
ad
valorem
duty
upon
the
importation
of
such
article
into
Canada
under
the
laws
relating
to
the
customs
and
the
customs
tariff,
whether
such
article
be
in
fact
subject
to
ad
valorem
or
other
duty
or
not,
and
in
addition
the
amount
of
the
custom
duties,
if
any,
payable
thereon:
Provided
that
in
computing
the
‘duty
paid
value’
of
tea
purchased
in
bond
in
Great
Britain
the
amount
of
the
customs
duty
payable
on
tea
for
consumption
in
Great
Britain
shall
not
be
included
in
the
value
of
such
tea
for
purposes
of
this
Part
;
and
that
in
the
case
of
matches
or
playing
cards,
the
excise
taxes
imposed
by
Parts
X
and
XII
of
this
Act
shall
be
included
in
the
duty
paid
value.”
•
The
respondent
urged
strongly
that
since
excise
taxes
were
expressly
mentioned
in
the
definition
of
‘‘duty
paid
value”
and
not
mentioned
in
the
definition
of
‘‘sale
price’’
except
that
the
latter
should
include
the
amount
of
other
excise
duties
when
the
goods
were
sold
in
bond,
there
was
no
intention
on
the
part
of
the
legislature
that
the
sales
tax
should
be
imposed
upon
the
sale
price
including
excise
tax.
It
must
be
kept
in
mind,
however,
that
“duty
paid
value’’
has
reference
only
to
imported
goods
where
there
may
not
be
a
price
at
all,
as
for
example,
where
there
are
being
brought
into
Canada
goods
such
as
an
automobile
or
painting
purchased
abroad.
In
the
case
of
goods
sold
in
bond,
there
may
again
be
special
circumstances
requiring
specific
mention
in
the
statute
that
‘‘sale
price”?
shall
include
the
amount
of
other
excise
duties.
For
example,
a
distiller
sells
a
consignment
of
spirits
to
a
purchaser
such
as
a
provincial
liquor
board,
which
purchaser
has
a
bonded
warehouse.
The
goods
in
such
a
case
are
sold
in
bond
and
the
excise
duty
is
not
payable
by
the
distiller
at
the
time
of
sale,
but
is
payable
only
when
the
purchaser
removes
them.
The
mention
of
excise
duties
by
way
of
definition
in
respect
of
these
special
cases
should
not
in
the
absence
of
plain
language
be
held
to
cut
down
the
wide
definition
of
‘‘sale
price’’
as
given.
The
earlier
part
of
sec.
85,
subsee.
(a)
provides
that
for
the
purpose
of,
calculating
the
amount
of
the
consumption
or
sales
ax,
‘‘sal
price’’
shall
mean
the
price
before
any
amount
payable
i
i
respect
f.
the
consumption
or
sales
tax
is
added
thereto.
Now,
as
already
indicated,
regulation.
2
pertaining
to
Part
XII
provides
that
the
excise
tax
stamps
on
playing
cards
manufactured
in
Canada
shall
be
affixed
to
the
individual
packs
and
be
cancelled
before
the
playing
cards
are
removed
from
the
premises
of
the
manufacturer.
Therefore
the
amount
of
the
excise
tax
must
truly
be
a
part
of
the
price
of
every
package
of
cards
leaving
the
premises
of
the
manufacturer.
The
definition
of
"‘sale
price’’
in
the
statute
is
very
comprehensive.
"‘Sale
price’’
is
inclusive
of
every
item
entering
into
the
price
just
before
the
consumption
or
sales
tax
is
added
and
must
therefore
include
the
excise
tax.
In
Partington
v.
Attorney
General
(1869)
L.R.
4
H.L.
100,
Lord
Cairns
said,
page
122:
"‘I
am
not
at
all
sure
that,
in
a
case
of
this
kind—a
fiscal
case—form
is
not
amply
sufficient;
because,
as
I
understand
the
principle
of
all
fiscal
legislation,
it
is
this:
if
the
person
sought
to
be
taxed
comes
within
the
letter
of
the
law
he
must
be
taxed,
however
great
the
hardship
may
appear
to
the
judicial
mind
to
be.
On
the
other
hand,
if
the
Crown,
seeking
to
recover
the
tax,
cannot
bring
the
subject
within
the
letter
of
the
law,
the
subject
is
free,
however
apparently
within
the-spirit
of
the
law
the
case
might
otherwise
appear
to
be.’’
I
am
of
opinion,
therefore,
that
the
appeal
should
be
allowed
and
that
judgment
should
be
entered
for
the
appellant
for
$2,611.58
and
costs
throughout.
CROCKET,
J.
(dissenting)
:—This
is
an
appeal
from
the
judgment
of
Mr.
Justice
Angers
of
the
Exchequer
Court
dismissing
an
information
brought
by
the
Attorney-General
of
Canada
to
recover
the
sum
of
$2,611.58,
which
it
was
claimed
the
defendant
became
liable
to
pay
to
His
Majesty
as
sales
tax
in
respect
of
the
sale
of
playing
cards
from
December
1st,
1931,
to
June
30111,
1932.
The
defendant
is
a
Canadian
licensed
manufacturer
of
playing
cards,
and,
as
such,
paid
sales
tax
on
playing
cards
manufactured
and
sold
by
it
during
the
period
mentioned
to
the
amount
of
$6,808.56.
This
amount
represented
4
per
cent
on
its
sales
down
to
the
time
of
the
coming
into
force
of
the
amendment
which
was
made
in
1932
to
the
Special
War
Revenue
Act,
R.S.C.
1927,
e.
179,
increasing
the
sales
tax
rate
to
6
per
cent,
and
6
per
cent
on
all
sales
subsequent
to
that
date,
but
the
sales
prices
on
which
the
tax
was
paid
did
not
include
the
special
tax
of
ten
cents
per
pack,
imposed
by
s.
82
of
the
Act,
though
the
invoice
prices
at
which
the
playing
cards
were
billed
to
its
customers
did
include
it.
The
Crown
contends
that
the
defendant
was
not
entitled
to
deduct
the
excise
tax
of
ten
cents
per
pack
from
the
invoice
price
at
which
it
billed
its
playing
cards
to
its
customers,
and
the
$2,611.58
claimed
in
the
information
represents
the
additional
amount
the
defendant
would
be
required
to
pay
on
its
sales
during
the
period
mentioned
if
the
excise
tax
forms
part
of
the
sale
price
for
the
purpose
of
computing
the
sales
tax.
This
is
the
whole
question
involved
in
the
case,
whether
the
excise
tax
is
to
be
included
in
or
excluded
from
the
sale
price
for
the
purpose
of
computing
the
sales
tax.
The
excise
tax
is
imposed,
as
already
stated,
by
s.
82
of
the
Act.
Ss.
2
of
this
section
is
as
follows
:
‘
‘
The
excise
taxes
imposed
by
the
preceding
subsection
shall
be
payable
at
the
time
"‘(a)
of
importation
or
removal
from
warehouse
for
consumption
in
addition
to
the
duties
of
customs
;
or
"(b)
of
sale
by
the
Canadian
manufacturer.’’
Sec.
86
is
the
section
which
imposed
the
sales
tax.
Prior
to
the
amendment
of
1932,
it
read,
in
so
far
as
is
here
material
"In
addition
to
any
duty
or
tax
that
may
be
payable
under
this
Act
or
any
other
statute
or
law,
there
shall
be
imposed,
levied
and
collected
a
consumption
or
sales
tax
of
four
per
cent
on
the
sale
price
of
all
goods.
"‘(a)
produced
or
manufactured
in
Canada,
payable
by
the
producer
or
manufacturer
at
the
times
of
the
delivery
of
such
goods
to
the
purchaser
thereof.’’
The
amendment
of
1932
substituted
for
these
words
the
following:
"‘There
shall
be
imposed,
levied
and
collected
a
consumption
or
sales
tax
of
six
per
cent
on
the
sale
price
of
all
goods,
‘“(a)
produced
or
manufactured,
payable
by
the
producer
or
manufacturer
at
the
time
of
the
delivery
of
such
goods
to
the
purchaser
thereof.’’
It
will
be
observed
that
the
only
change
which
the
amendment
effected
beyond
the
substitution
of
the
six
per
cent
for
the
four
per
cent
rate
was
the
omission
of
the
opening
words,
‘‘in
addition
to
any
duty
or
tax
that
may
be
payable
under
this
Act
or
any
other
statute
or
law”.
Whatever
the
significance
of
these
words
and
their
omission
from
the
substituted
section
may
be,
I
agree
with
the
learned
trial
judge
that
the
solution
of
the
question
with
which
he
was
concerned
is
to
be
found
in
the
definitions
which
the
Act
itself
gives
of
the
words
*
"
sale
price’’,
and
‘‘duty
paid
value’’
in
s.
85.
‘*
‘Sale
price’,”
says
this
section,
‘‘for
the
purpose
of
calculating
the
amount
of
the
consumption
or
sales
tax
shall
mean
the
price
before
any
amount
payable
in
respect
of
the
consumption
or
sales
tax
is
added
thereto,
and
shall
include
the
amount
of
other
excise
duties
when
the
goods
are
sold
in
bond;
in
the
case
of
imported
goods
the
sale
price
shall
be
deemed
to
be
the
duty
paid
value
thereof.
‘
‘Duty
paid
value’
shall
mean
the
value
of
the
article
as
it
would
be
determined
for
the
purpose
of
calculating
an
ad
valorem
duty
upon
the
importation
of
such
article
into
Canada
*
*
*
Provided
*
*
*
that
in
the
case
of
matches
and
playing
cards
the
excise
taxes
imposed
by
Parts
X
and
XII
of
this
Act
shall
be
included
in
the
duty
paid
value.’’
The
definition
of
‘‘sales
price’’,
as
pointed
out
by
the
learned
judge,
excludes
the
sales
tax
and
includes
the
amount
of
other
excise
duties
when
the
goods
are
sold
in
bond,
but
makes
no
mention
of
excise
tax,
while
in
the
case
of
imported
goods
it
is
provided
that
the
sale
price
is
to
be
deemed
the
duty
paid
value
thereof,
and
in
the
case
of
matches
and
playing
cards
expressly
enacts
that
the
duty
paid
value
shall
include
in
addition
to
any
customs
duties
payable
thereon
the
excise
tax
imposed
by
s.
82.
Had
the
statute
itself
not
defined
the
term
‘‘sales
price’’,
it
might
well
be
argued
that
the
sale
price
was
what
the
purchaser
paid
to
the
vendor
as
consideration
for
the
object
of
the
sale
and
that
since
the
purchaser
had
to
pay
the
excise
tax
to
the
vendor,
such
excise
tax
should
be
treated
as
part
of
the
purchase
price.
Since
the
statute,
however,
itself
states
not
only
what
the
term
‘‘sale
price’’
means,
but
what
it
includes
and
does
not
include,
I
am
of
opinion
that
the
tax
which
Parliament
has
imposed
as
a
sales
tax
upon
the
sale
price
of
goods
produced
or
manufactured
in
Canada
ought
not
to
be
held
to
be
imposed
upon
another
special
tax
as
part
of
such
sale
price,
as
in
the
case
of
the
excise
tax
on
playing
cards,
unless
that
special
tax
is
clearly
indicated
in
the
statutory
definition
as
part
of
the
sale
price
upon
which
the
sales
tax
is
imposed.
A
taxing
statute
18
always
to
be
construed
strictly
against
the
taxing
authorities,
and,
in
my
opinion,
a
tax
upon
a
tax
ought
not
to
be
held
to
be
imposed
in
the
absence
of
language
which
leaves
no
doubt
whatever
as
to
the
intention
to
impose
it.
The
omission
from
the
statutory
definition
of
any
mention
of
excise
taxes,
together
with
its
inclusion
of
excise
duties
when
goods
are
sold
in
bond
and
its
express
provision
making
the
excise
tax
part
of
the
duty
paid
value
and
of
the
sale
price
in
the
case
of
imported
playing
cards,
leaves
the
question
in
such
doubt
that
I
think
the
learned
trial
judge
was
fully
warranted
in
resolving
the
question
against
the
taxing
authorities.
The
appeal
should,
therefore,
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeal
allowed
with
costs.
Email this Content