Chef on the Run Franchise Division Ltd. v. The Queen, 2003 TCC 212 (Informal Procedure)

_______________________________________________________________

Appeal heard on April 2, 2003 at Victoria, British Columbia

_______________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

The appeal from the assessment made under the Excise Tax Act, notice of which is dated March 11, 2002 and bears number 11CU118091230, is allowed and the assessment is referred to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.

The Appellant is awarded $100 on account of out-of-pocket expenses

incurred in the course of prosecuting this appeal.

Signed at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan this 14th day of April, 2003.

J.T.C.C.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Beaubier, J.T.C.C.

[1]      This appeal pursuant to the Informal Procedure was heard at Victoria, British Columbia on April 2, 2003. By consent of the parties, the evidence contained in Complete Cuisine and Fine Foods to Go (1988) Ltd. v. The Queen 2002-683(GST)I was adopted for the purposes of this case except where conflicting evidence occurred in this case. On that basis, the Court adopts the evidence contained in 2002-683(GST)I.

[2]      Julia Ripley a shareholder and operating officer of the Appellant testified for the Appellant. Karola Williams, D. Jur., M.B.A., C.M.A., the Appeals Officer for the Respondent on the file, testified for the Respondent.

[3]      The assumptions and evidence respecting them, excepting one particular, are similar to the findings in 2002-683(GST)I.

[4]      The particular difference occurs when Ms. Williams testified that she visited the Appellant's premises in Sidney, British Columbia and purchased a package of food. It was filled pursuant to her custom request, she then took it, microwaved it on a plate pursuant to instructions on the package, and ate it.

[5]      Julia Ripley testified that the packages sold for delivery are prepared and delivered exactly as described in the reasons in 2002-683(GST)I. Her evidence is accepted over that of Ms. Williams for two reasons. The first is that Ms. Williams' purchase was a pick up, not a delivery. The second is that her visit occurred after the period in question.

[6]      The result of these findings is that the analysis in this case follows that in 2002-683(GST)I. For that reason the appeal is allowed. The Appellant is awarded the sum of $100.00 on account of out-of-pocket expenses such as postage and copying which were incurred in the course of prosecuting the appeal.

          Signed at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan this 14th day of April, 2003.

J.T.C.C.