Parton v Milk Board (Vic)

{{Short description|Judgement of the High Court of Australia}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2018}}

{{Use Australian English|date=February 2018}}

{{refimprove|date=February 2018}}

{{Infobox court case

|name=Parton v Milk Board (Vic)

|court=High Court of Australia

|image=Coat of Arms of Australia.svg

|date decided=21 December 1949

|full name=

|citations={{cite AustLII|HCA|67|1949|parallelcite=[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1949/67.pdf (1949) 80 {{abbr|CLR|Commonwealth Law Reports}} 229]}}

|judges= Latham CJ, Rich, Dixon, McTiernan and Williams JJ

| prior actions=

| subsequent actions=

|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)

}}{{italics title|all=yes|noerror}}

Parton v Milk Board (Vic),{{cite AustLII|HCA|67|1949|litigants=Parton v Milk Board (Vic) |parallelcite=[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1949/67.pdf (1949) 80 {{abbr|CLR|Commonwealth Law Reports}} 229] |date=21 December 1949 |courtname=High Court}}. 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,{{cite AustLII|HCA|21|1904|litigants=Peterswald v Bartley |parallelcite=[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/hca/1904/21.pdf (1904) 1 CLR 497] |date=31 August 1904 |courtname=High Court}}. 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".