Decisions

---

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

---

Ottawa, Tuesday, June 21, 1994

Appeal No. AP-93-075

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal heard on January 10, 1994, under section 81.19 of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a decision of the Minister of National Revenue dated March 17, 1993, with respect to a notice of objection served under section 81.17 of the Excise Tax Act.

BETWEEN

PARKVIEW SUPERETTE (1985) LTD. Appellant

AND

THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent

The appeal is dismissed.

Sidney A. Fraleigh ______ Sidney A. Fraleigh Presiding Member

Anthony T. Eyton ______ Anthony T. Eyton Member

Arthur B. Trudeau ______ Arthur B. Trudeau Member

Michel P. Granger ______ Michel P. Granger Secretary

The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant's federal sales tax inventory rebate application was filed within the statutory time limit set forth in subsection 120(8) of the Excise Tax Act.

HELD: The appeal is dismissed. The appellant admits that the application was filed in mid - January 1992, that is, beyond the statutory time limit.

Place of Hearing: Ottawa, Ontario Date of Hearing: January 10, 1994 Date of Decision: June 21, 1994
Tribunal Members: Sidney A. Fraleigh, Presiding Member Anthony T. Eyton, Member Arthur B. Trudeau, Member
Counsel for the Tribunal: Gilles B. Legault
Clerk of the Tribunal: Janet Rumball
Parties: David L. Allen, for the appellant Anne M. Turley, for the respondent

This is an appeal under section 81.19 of the Excise Tax Act [1] (the Act) of a determination of the Minister of National Revenue rejecting a federal sales tax (FST) inventory rebate application filed by the appellant.

In accordance with rule 25 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Rules, [2] the Tribunal, after having given public notice of its intention, proceeded to dispose of the matter on the basis of written submissions on January 10, 1994.

The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant's FST inventory rebate application was filed within the statutory time limit set forth in subsection 120(8) of the Act. [3]

In agreeing with the statement of facts contained in the respondent's brief, the appellant admits that its FST inventory rebate application, which was received by the respondent on January 28, 1992, was mailed between January 10 and 16, 1992. However, the appellant's representative argued that it would only be fair that the appellant obtain the rebate because small businesses have so much legislation with which to comply that they are forced to rely on expensive professional assistance. The appellant's accountant, who acted as its representative, further argued that, on December 27, 1991, the appellant brought its books of accounts to his accounting firm, which was then advised that the FST inventory rebate application had not yet been filed.

The Tribunal is bound to apply the prescriptions of the statute to the statement of facts submitted by the parties. In this case, the FST inventory rebate application was filed in mid-January 1992, outside the statutory time limit of subsection 120(8) of the Act, which provides that "[n]o rebate shall be paid under this section unless the application therefor is filed with the Minister before 1992." For that reason, the appeal should be dismissed.

Moreover, although it has no jurisdiction to apply principles of equity and, thus, to consider fairness, the Tribunal notes that the FST inventory rebate application was filed in mid-January 1992 despite the fact that the appellant was advised by its accountant to file a blank application with basic information before the end of 1991. Had the appellant simply filed an incomplete application before 1992, the situation would have been different, as the Tribunal would have been ready to accept that the statutory deadline had been met which, the Tribunal understands, is also the policy of the Department of National Revenue in such cases.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

---

[ Table of Contents]

---

1. R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15.

2. SOR/91-499, August 14, 1991, Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 125, No. 18 at 2912.

3. S.C. 1990, c. 45, s. 12.

---

Initial publication: May 29, 1997