![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions >> Jauffur v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Mauritius) [2006] UKPC 32 (21 June 2006) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2006/32.html Cite as: [2006] UKPC 32 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
Jauffur v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Mauritius) [2006] UKPC 32 (21 June 2006)
Privy Council Appeal No 6 of 2005
Abdul Raouf Jauffur Appellant
v.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Respondent
FROM
THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
Delivered the 21st June 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Lord Steyn
Lord Hutton
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Lord Mance
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Delivered by Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe]
Section 8 provided as follows:
"(1) Any party who is dissatisfied with the determination of the tribunal as being erroneous in point of law may, within 28 days of the date of determination, appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2) An appeal under this section shall be prosecuted in the manner provided by rules made by the Supreme Court."
Rule 3 of the Tax Appeal Rules 1984 provided for an appeal under section 8(1) to be by way of case stated. By section 10 of the Act the burden of proof that any assessment is incorrect falls on the taxpayer.
"Any court or other authority required or empowered by law to determine the existence or extent of any civil right or obligation shall be established by law and shall be independent and impartial, and where proceedings for such a determination are instituted by any person before such a court or other authority, the case shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time."
The precise content of the expression "civil right or obligation" is open to argument but their Lordships assume in favour of the appellant that his tax appeal involves the determination of his civil rights or obligations.
"(1) No property of any description shall be compulsorily taken possession of, and no interest in or right over property of any description shall be compulsorily acquired, except where –
(a) [there is a public interest of the specified sort]
(b) [there is reasonable justification for the resulting hardship] and
(c) provision is made by a law applicable to that taking of possession or acquisition –
(i) for the payment of adequate compensation; and
(ii) securing for any person having an interest in or right over the property a right of access to the Supreme Court, whether direct or on appeal from any other authority, for the determination of his interest or right, the legality of the taking of possession or acquisition of the property, interest or right, and the amount of any compensation to which he is entitled, and for the purpose of obtaining payment of that compensation."