Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 28 of
28
with 100 items per page.
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania abstract "Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania (1974) 130 CLR 177 is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution.In this case, the Act in question imposed licences for the sale of tobacco, and the fee was calculated as being 2.5 percent of the retail value of tobacco sold in the 12 month period ending 6 months prior to the licence period. Three judges, namely Gibbs, Menzies and Stephen JJ, applied the criterion of liability approach and held that the fee was not an excise and thus not invalid by section 90 (see Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria). Barwick CJ and Mason J, while disapproving of the criterion of liability approach, felt bound to follow the precedent set by Dennis Hotels, since the facts of that cases were quite similar to those in this case.The Court, with the exception of McTiernan J, excluded consumption taxes from duties of excise, although such taxes are frequently also a tax on the sale of goods.".
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania thumbnail Australia_coa.png?width=300.
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania wikiPageExternalLink 130clr177.html.
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania wikiPageID "5635383".
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania wikiPageRevisionID "604269612".
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania citations 130clr177.html.
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania court High_Court_of_Australia.
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania dateDecided "1974-04-01".
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania fullName "Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania".
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania hasPhotoCollection Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania.
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania judges "Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Menzies, Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ".
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania name "Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania".
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania opinions "A licensing scheme with a backdating mechanism is not an excise".
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania priorActions "none".
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania subsequentActions "none".
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania subject Category:1974_in_Australia.
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania subject Category:1974_in_case_law.
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania subject Category:Australian_constitutional_law.
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania subject Category:Excise_in_the_Australian_Constitution_cases.
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania subject Category:High_Court_of_Australia_cases.
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania comment "Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania (1974) 130 CLR 177 is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution.In this case, the Act in question imposed licences for the sale of tobacco, and the fee was calculated as being 2.5 percent of the retail value of tobacco sold in the 12 month period ending 6 months prior to the licence period.".
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania label "Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania".
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania sameAs m.0dxgb4.
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania sameAs Q5273625.
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania sameAs Q5273625.
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania wasDerivedFrom Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania?oldid=604269612.
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania depiction Australia_coa.png.
- Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania isPrimaryTopicOf Dickenson's_Arcade_Pty_Ltd_v_Tasmania.