It is something to learn that the verdict given in
favour of Sebel Products, Limited, against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise is being officially considered, for on the face of it a more indefensible attitude has rarely been adopted by a Government Department. The facts are simple. Sebel's make toys, and they contended that a certain oroduct, called a Mobo Rocker Swing, was not subject to
purchase-tax. The Excise people insisted that it was, and Sebel's paid. They then, however, took the matter into Court and secured a verdict in their favour—i.e., to the effect that purchase-tax was not leviable. The next thing, naturally, was that Sebel's applied fot the return of the tax they had paid, only to be met by the Com- missioners with the bland assertion that the money had been volun- tarily paid under a mistake of law—this means, be it noted, that Sebel's had acquiesced under protest in the Commissioners' mis- statement of the law—and was therefore irrecoverable. Once more Sebel's took the matter to Court. Once more they got a verdict in their favour, the Commissioners being called on to refund £900 and to pay costs ; this last privilege will, of course, fall on the taxpayer. This is what the Prime Minister—or someone—has under consideration, and it ought not to take long to reach con- clusions. The case may be compared with one I mentioned last week, when a Government Department, having made payments In error through its own carelessness, promptly demanded a return of the money. In the present case a Government Department, having secured money through its own inaccurate interpretation of the law, did its best to hold on to it wrongfully in spite of a High Court Judge's decision against it.
* * * *
Previous page
