Case: The Queensland Cement and Lime Co Ltd v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1986) 86 ATC 4771
Outcome: considered
So much was contended by Lindsay moreover to be no different in principle, materially or relevantly, from the process or treatment involved in maintaining the slurry in Queensland Cement &amp; Lime Co Ltd v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1986) 86 ATC 4771, being a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, in which the following views were expressed by de Jersey J (at 4773), albeit in the context of the 1935 precursor to the STEC Act: 'I should add, with regard to a submission made on behalf of the defendant, that it would in my view be artificial to regard the conversion of limestone power to slurry, and the transporting of that slurry to Fisherman's Landing, as standing apart from the process of manufacture of the clinker. This is, of course, apart from what I have already referred to as a concession on the pleadings. As I have indicated, fairly read, the material before me suggests one continuous process of manufacture, commencing at the latest with the grinding of the limestone... ... I should also record my view that the pumps were for use in the "processing or treatment" of the slurry. The defendant's submission appeared to me to involve the views first, that the transporting through the pipes was not part of the overall manufacturing process (the matter with which I have just dealt), and second, that the primary and principal use of the pumps was not in the "processing or treatment" of the slurry being confined to its transportation to Fisherman's Landing. In my opinion, the use of the pumps to move the slurry through the pipes, and manage it at homogeneous and therefore usable consistency, did involve their use in the processing or treatment of the slurry. Clearly such use was and is the "primary and principal" use of the pumps.' 62 The Commissioner asserted that there was a difference in the present factual context between 'maintaining the slurry' and Lindsay's 'activity of refrigeration', both being descriptions framed by the Commissioner, and sought to rely on the following passage earlier in the reasons of de Jersey J also at 4773: '... more than mere transportation is involved: the pumps continue the mixing process necessary for manufacture of the clinker by ensuring the homogeneity of the mixture delivered at Fisherman's Landing...' . Of course Lindsay disputed that any such notion of mere transportation was here involved, which I think to be correct as an evidentiary proposition, and significantly to my mind, the Commissioner nevertheless acknowledged that Queensland Cement and Lime constituted 'a further example of a process falling within the continuum of manufacture'. Of course, issues of the kind here arising fall ultimately to be determined having regard to their own circumstances, as well as of course in the light of legislative stipulations of sufficient operation. 63 The Commissioner further submitted that Lindsay '... only contracted to provide freight services between two points and on any view it did not have any subjective or objective purpose to manufacture goods', and that 'its purpose in carrying out the activity of refrigeration was extraneous to any purpose warranted or contemplated under subItem 18(5)(c) that was directed to a manufacture related activity'. So much seemingly boiled down to perhaps the essence of the Commissioner's case, and was of course disputed by Lindsay as not addressing the substance of Lindsay's case founded on subItem 18(5)(c), for reasons which I have generally as well as specifically outlined already at some length. The Commissioner further asserted that '... there is no evidence as to whether the goods once unloaded, remained at the temperature of the insulated bodies or were returned to room temperature, when for example, they are placed on display in a Woolworth's store'. That latter contention hardly bore upon the significance or otherwise of the condition in which Lindsay was required to deliver the transported foodstuffs etc to their appointed destination, and in any event was not only speculative but seemingly at odds with the thrust of Lindsay's extensive evidence.